On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 10:49:26PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Michelle Konzack said: > > Am 2004-07-19 10:01:06, schrieb Russell Coker: > > >On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 05:59, Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> >Thinking of the expected 50KB/sec download rate i calculated a > > >> >theoretical maximum of ~250 simultaneous downloads -- am i right ? > > >> > > >> With a 100 MBit NIC you can have a maximum of 7 MByte/sec > > > > > >What makes you think so? > > > > > >Other people get >10MB/s. I've benchmarked some of my machines at 9MB/s. > > > > I do not belive it ! > > > > Maybe with UDP but not TCP it is not possibel from the protocol. > > I have high performanc NIC's and some servers which are killer > > but never gotten more as 7,4 MByte/second > > > > How do you Benchmark ? > > Two computers with 2 feet cross-over cable ? > > > > Maybe you will have zero errors, but in real it does not work. > > (create large file) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ dd if=/dev/urandom of=public_html/large_file bs=1024 count=50000 > 50000+0 records in > 50000+0 records out > > (get large file) > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ wget www.lobefin.net/~steve/large_file > [...] > 22:46:09 (9.61 MB/s) - `large_file' saved [51200000/51200000] > > Of course, for reasonable sized files (where reasonable is <10MB), > I get transfer speeds closer to 11MB/s. YMMV, but it is not a fault > of the tcp protocol. Switched 10/100 connection here. Of course real > internet travel adds some latency, but that's not the point - the NIC > is not the bottleneck, bandwidth is in the OP's question.
*ARGH*... and of course, there's *definately* no compression going on there, is there... Cheers. -- Brett Parker -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]