this post was submitted on 26 Nov 2023
3 points (100.0% liked)
Home Networking
189 readers
1 users here now
A community to help people learn, install, set up or troubleshoot their home network equipment and solutions.
Rules
- Please stay on topic.
- Please use the search function to look for keywords related to what you want to ask before posting since most common issues have been answered.
- No Ads. This community is for support and discussion. Ads and self promotion are not welcome here.
- No product reviews or announcements. If you have a question about a product, be specific about what you want to know.
- Be civil. Don't be a jerk. Not being a jerk is surprisingly easy.
- No URL shorteners. URL shorteners tend to hide the real use of a link. For this reason, please use normal links, even if they're long.
- No affiliate links.
- No gatekeeping. With profession shall come professionalism. Extend help without judging others for their ignorance. The same goes for downvoting of comments or posts for "stupid questions" or not being as knowledgeable as others.
founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ok I guess we have to start way in front of your question to not just answer your question but give you an understanding.
First of all, what does a switch do: A switch has for example 24 ports and all ports are connected to the CPU of the switch. When a pc connected to the switch wants to reach the router to access the internet he asks the switch to really the data to the router but the switch doesn’t know where the router is so it sends on all ports „Hey are you 192.168.0.1(for example if it’s the gateway in your network config)“ then on one port the router answered „yes“ and the switch makes a note on a list that this up is on port x. So over time the switch knows who is where and what speed does the port support. Because said CPU has a bandwidth normally greater than the sum of all ports (rock a Unifi 24 port switch by chance and it had 26gbit bandwidth) it can for example connect 2 pcs transfering files with a full gigabit all while running a download from the internet router to a third pc with no problem. So as long as you don’t want to access one ressource with multiple PCs you have full speed and if you do the packets are stored in a small buffer and if it is full the PCs are told to wait a millisecond and it is transfered in a first come first serve method so everyone can get data through.
All a router does extra on top is have an extra list if he doesn’t find the receiver of the packets internally he notes the address of the PC that asked and sends the request to the wan port and when someone responds he know who to send the response internally.
Thanks for the detailed explanation - so if I understand this correctly, basically there is a port speed and there is an internal bandwidth speed - a port speed could be 100M, 1G, or 10Gbit, for example, but the internal bandwidth should be much much larger than that.
My follow up question is then: if I have a ISP modem -> router A and ISP modem -> switch -> router B connection set up (both connecting from the same ISP modem but using different ports on the modem) and all my PCs/game consoles/smart TVs are connecting to router B and all my IoT devices are connecting router A, in terms of the speed for devices connected to Router B it should, at least in theory, enjoying whatever bandwidth that's not used by the IoT devices in router A (which I assume would be minimum) and if I only have one PC turned on and that's the only device connecting to router B then my PC should almost have the same speed as the minimum of all port speed and my internet speed? Is that correct?
Link speed is your hard limit -- you can't go faster than that. Nothing gets divided up just because a device is on. The concept of bottlenecks is what's important. If you had a 100Mbs switch (with 1Gbs uplink) and a 1Gbs router with a 500Mbs ISP speed, a PC on the switch will be bottlenecked at your 100mbs switch port -- it won't be able to go beyond 100mbs. If you have 5 PC's on that 100Mbs switch all trying to do 100Mbs each (since that's the bottleneck of the switch), each PC will be able to do 100Mbs and since you have a 500Mbs speed connection -- each PC should get 100Mbs. The switch uplink will pass 500Mbs/1000Mbs and the router will pass 500Mbs to the ISP. If you add a 6th PC trying to do 100Mbs then it gets bottlenecked at the ISP link since it can only do 500Mbs even though the router can do 1Gbs.
If your 100Mbs switch had no 1Gbs uplink then the fastest switchport to the router would be 100Mbs. In the first scenario of 5 PC's trying to do 100Mbs each, they would all be throttled to roughly 20Mbs since the total connection out of the switch would be 100Mbs. If only 1 device tried downloading, the limit would be 100Mbs for that device since the limit would be the link speed of the switch to the router.
If you had a PC directly connected to your router at 1Gbs bypassing any 100Mbs switch limits, the bottleneck would be at the ISP of 500Mbs. If you had devices on the 100Mbs switch (with 100Mbs uplink) trying to download at max capacity while your PC was directly connected, your expected speed would be 400Mbs since 100Mbs would be going to the switch.
The concept of a 24-port Gigabit switch with only 1Gbs uplink works because no device is expected to be constantly utilizing 1Gbs for a sustained period of time. They also supply full bandwidth to ports across the switch that don't have to go across a common uplink. PC A and PC B can talk to each other at 1Gbs if on the same switch while PC C is talking to the Internet at 1Gbs. As long as the devices aren't utilizing a common port at the same time, there's no bottleneck.
No switch or router does load balancing, you wont get 5 times 20mbit it will be all over the place...
You could actually expect less than 20Mbs because of congestion issues assuming no QoS and you're right that any port might get more at any particular moment of time. This is mean to be an illustration of bottlenecks and not an implication of layer-2 load balancing. The traffic just can't be more than what the bottleneck will allow.
There's another variable here, which is the behavior that TCP and UDP flows have on each other. There are a number of TCP congestion management algorithms that have been developed over the years. This paper, for example, shows that BBR congestion control is very unfair to CUBIC. IOW, if one PC is using BBR and another CUBIC, the first PC will hog most of the bandwidth.
Similarly, QUIC, which is a UDP-based alternative to TCP originally developed by Google and used a lot by Chrome, is quite unfair to TCP as the images show.
Anyway, this is a bit off topic. The main point that the network is only as fast as the slowest link is correct.