Splitting Bandwidth

[Armanda Kicks]

Ihave a Ethernet cable that has approx speed of 250 Mbps but then I dont get enough range in one of the rooms, so I was thinking of splitting the main Ethernet into two cables and then sending one of that to a different room which has a router which transmits in pretty good speed. But I'm not sure how to split the cable into two. I've heard about network switches, but it shows something like 5-Port 10/100MBPS with the product title, which I assume 100 Mbps is the max speed? I'm not sure, can someone throw some light on it, because I want more than 100 Mbps to be transmitted from the wires. And will it work if one Ethernet cable be split into two where the two cables can be plugged into two different routers?

Current setup:Network from my neighbours moden is bough to my routers LAN cable which makes wifi system here, but its pretty slow(might be a modem issue), connecting to a different modem fixes the network speed, but the new modem has less range, so I was planning to use 2 modems but with only one ethernet cable. Hence my idea to split the cable into two and give two ethernet to two modem.

It is possible to split a single physical Ethernet cable into 2 cables, but you will limit the speeds to 100 megabit, as you only have 2 pairs (ie 4 wires) per cable. The big limitation is that the cable needs to GI between the same points and you need 2 ports in your router. Unlike phone cable you can't connect 3 cables together to connect up 3 devices. (Although this is what your question asks, I don't think this us what you want to do)

The other alternative - which is not splitting cables but rather daisy chaining switches - is likely what you want. Yes, 100 megabit switches will be limited to 100 megabits, but you can pay more money and get gigabit ones. Its fine to connect multiple switches together, provided you don't create a loop. Is each switch should only connect to 1 other switch. If you need 2 virtual cables - rg for LAN and WAN this is much harder and more expensive as you need VLAN capable switches which are a lot more expensive.

But if you're actually going to connect two routers to this switch, you'll run into another issue: devices connected to two different routers won't see each other. So for example local network file sharing will not work, it will all go through the Internet. That's because each router creates a separate network.

What would work is connecting a single router where you wanted to split the cable and adding additional access point where you need better WiFi coverage and/or speed. Access points don't create a network, they simply broadcast the wireless signal for the network created by the router, so you're avoiding the two networks issue.

The best, most reliable option would be to use wired connection. If that's not an option due to difficulties laying the new cable, you could add powerline adapters into the mix - these transmit network signal over regular AC cables you already have in your walls. Make sure to get ones that will be fast enough for your application (300 Mbps+, some headroom is always nice to have).

I am not aware of a direct method for equally distributing your bandwidth using only a router, but you can assign bandwidth priority for certain applications (web-browsers, bit torrent clients, etc) and that way make sure that you have enough bandwidth to surf.

Have a look at this article it will give some ideas on how to achieve priority based bandwidth management for applications by configuring the QoS ruleset of your router. The article does recommend a router too but you can also look for other routers with the same specifications as the router could be an outdated model.

Another option is using a firewall OS, you should have a look at PFsense and this article. It has very meager hardware requirements, or you could set it up as a virtual machine (if you don't want to invest in separate hardware for this project) in your own computer and that way all you will need to invest in will be a 1 or 2 extra network cards (depending on your setup) and a little bit of effort in setting it up on your end.

Pfsense (free and open source) is able to do this for you. You need a separate computer to run pfsense but you can now split your network into separate subnets and/or assign priorities.The traffic shaper may also work better for you than limiting the network to 4mbps.

BT are pestering me to plug in my Smart Hub 2 so I can keep using my landline, but it's been gathering dust in a cupboard for about a year because it doesn't support band splitting (which causes issues that I'm sure many are familiar with).

If you need to use the SH2 have you considered turning off Wifi completely on the SH2 and using a different Wifi Access point? I you have an existing router that does provide Wifi as you desire, then provided you don't need to return it you could disable DHCP, set a static ip address on it (such as 192.168.1.1) and link the two routers via ethernet.

A popular technique for reducing the bandwidth load on Web servers isto serve the content from proxies. Typically these hosts aretrusted by the clients and server not to modify the data that theyproxy. SSL splitting is a new technique for guaranteeing theintegrity of data served from proxies without requiring changes toWeb clients. Instead of relaying an insecure HTTP connection, anSSL splitting proxy simulates a normal Secure Sockets Layer(SSL) [7] connection with the client by mergingauthentication records from the server with data records from a cache.This technique reduces the bandwidth load on the server, whileallowing an unmodified Web browser to verify that the data served fromproxies is endorsed by the originating server.

SSL splitting is implemented as a patch to theindustry-standard OpenSSL library, with which the server islinked. In experiments replaying two-hour access.log tracestaken from LCS Web sites over an ADSL link, SSL splitting reducesbandwidth consumption of the server by between 25% and 90% dependingon the warmth of the cache and the redundancy of the trace. Uncachedrequests forwarded through the proxy exhibit latencies withinapproximately 5% of those of an unmodified SSL server.

Let's say I have a file that's 10GB and I want to transfer it over the Internet. Will it be best and fastest if I split the file into many smaller files and send it, then reassemble it after transfer, or just send the one large file without splitting and reassemblement?

Another approach is to use file transfer software designed for that task. Such software either optimizes the tcp window size or uses udp. There are both public-domain and commercial options available (but specific recommendations are off topic).

If you just look at the network, leaving out all other factors (source and destination hardware and software limitations, overhead on intermediate devices/routers, ...), there are essentially two factors: bandwidth and round-trip time. For a larger network, the bandwidth of the slowest link in the path is the one relevant - obviously, your throughput cannot ever get higher than that.

If the transmission protocol sends one packet at a time, waits for acknowledgment, and then sends the next, the round-trip time totally dominates the achievable throughput: sending and acknowledging take a full round trip (RTT) and a single packet is transported. The throughput is RTT * packet size, regardless of available bandwidth (unless that is actually lower).

To get around this limitation, many protocols send a specific number of packets before the first acknowledgement is due - most prominently the TCP transport protocol where this is the send window. With the same logic as above, the achievable throughput has now increased to RTT * window size, becoming independent from the physical packet size.

Now, a large, high-bandwidth network may still be limited by the RTT - when the bandwidth-delay product is greater than the possible window size. It may be necessary to increase the window size beyond TCP's standard 64 KiB. This is where the window scale option comes in, increasing the potential window size to appr. 1 GB.

However, we've previously assumed that the network has appropriate free bandwidth to accommodate our stream. The situation changes when there is contention between the different streams and the network becomes congested. Normally, contention happens between the different streams or connections. So, using multiple connections in parallel may be able to use a larger portion of the congested network: when there are four competitors in addition to your single stream, each connection gets 1/5 of the bandwidth. If you then split your stream into four, each stream gets 1/8 of the bandwidth but your combined streams 4/8 = 1/2 of the bandwidth.

In a nutshell, splitting up a stream into multiple, concurrent ones is faster when a) the window size is insufficient for the available bandwidth or b) when there is congestion on the path and contention is arbitrated by connection

Whether you use FTP or HTTP doesn't matter much from the network perspective - both use TCP as underlying transport layer protocol and should behave very similarly. In practice, that may differ because of differences in the applications and their implementation.

At a basic level, PCI Express supports a single device for a physical connection (board slot), which can negotiate to use a particular number of lanes for communication: x1, x2, x4, x8, or x16. Since this requires physical wiring, this is the simple baseline that all this starts with, and there is only one device possible.

The first is for the PCIe controller powering the slot to support treating each group of lanes as belonging to individual devices, when paired with the appropriate card. Today that PCIe controller will either be in the CPU or the chipset. A bifurcation card (riser) handles power and control signal redistribution, and physically routes each set of lanes to a new physical slot. Then the PCIe controller has to be explicitly configured for the number of new slots. This is the lowest-cost option, and what that eBay item and things like the ASUS 4x NVME card do.

3a8082e126