(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per (PeteCresswell):
On all of
those tests, LAN Speed Test listed "Packet Length" as 1,000,000.

Reading here-and-there, I'm coming away suspicious of the 1,000,000
number. Yes, LanSpeedTest really did cite it.... but it's looking
unrealistic to me.

viz this quote from http://tinyurl.com/qz2j47e
"Long packets, such as the 1,518-byte packets we used, are a good way to
stress a network."

Also, I am getting the impression that Packet Length is determined by
applications and not globally for the entire network.

Am I on the right track?

The article on Jumbo Frames says 9000 is the accepted limit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumbo_frame

I've only run Jumbo just the one time, directly, between
two computers. In my mixed network with decrepit gear
here and there, I can't fix everything to run Jumbo,
and it would likely break at the router anyway.

If you want a speed test, try this one. It's for
computer to computer. You start a receiver copy on
one machine. Then transmit to that machine, from
another machine. And it'll measure the speed.

http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/ttcpdown1.htm

The reason I was using that, is I have a file sharing
setup with a 20MB/sec visible limit. And I can't figure
out why it is running slow. The weird part is, if I
start a copy of "dumpcap" tied to the port in question,
file sharing runs faster. But I don't know what that
means and why that should make a difference.

Paul