Hello Jhon

With read test i mean dd or others tools

Thanks


2013/4/12 John Elliot <johnellio...@hotmail.com>

> Hi - What do you mean by "read test"?  hdparm?
>
> hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
>
> /dev/sda1:
>  Timing cached reads:   8412 MB in  2.00 seconds = 4207.53 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 190 MB in  1.94 seconds =  97.96 MB/sec
>
> # hdparm -Tt /dev/sda3
>
> /dev/sda3:
>  Timing cached reads:   7400 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3703.93 MB/sec
>  Timing buffered disk reads: 186 MB in  3.02 seconds =  61.58 MB/sec
>
>
> ftp (With ss)
>
> ESTAB      0      477840   ::ffff:192.168.123.2:ftp-data   ::ffff:
> 192.168.123.1:51161
> ESTAB      0      360552   ::ffff:192.168.123.2:ftp-data   ::ffff:
> 192.168.123.1:51161
>
> And results (Similar to iperf):
>
> ftp> get 64Mb.zip
> local: 64Mb.zip remote: 64Mb.zip
> 200 PORT command successful
> 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for 64Mb.zip (67108864 bytes)
> 226 Transfer complete
> 67108864 bytes received in 42.11 secs (1556.2 kB/s)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:08:23 +0200
>
> Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction (UDP
> good)
> From: emi2f...@gmail.com
> To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
> CC: mtzgu...@gmail.com; debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> Hello John
>
> Try to do read test on the sender, if you don't find any read problem try
> to do a transfer using ftp
>
> Thanks
>
>
> 2013/4/12 John Elliot <johnellio...@hotmail.com>
>
> Thanks for the reply:
>
> ss results (wget in "bad" direction):
>
> "Receiver" - Recv and Send does not change from "0":
> ESTAB       0      0
> 192.168.123.1:32815
>  192.168.123.2:www
>
> "Sender" - snapshots below:
> State       Recv-Q Send-Q                                            Local
> Address:Port                                                Peer
> Address:Port
> ESTAB       0      505352
>  192.168.123.2:www
> 192.168.123.1:32816
>
> ESTAB       0      522728
>  192.168.123.2:www
> 192.168.123.1:32816
>
> ESTAB       0      328696
>  192.168.123.2:www
> 192.168.123.1:32816
>
> In the other direction:
>
> Reciever:
> ESTAB      0      0           192.168.123.2:33036        192.168.123.1:
> www
>
> Sender:
> ESTAB      0      535760   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www       ::ffff:
> 192.168.123.2:33038
> ESTAB      0      383720   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www       ::ffff:
> 192.168.123.2:33038
> ESTAB      0      474944   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www       ::ffff:
> 192.168.123.2:33038
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:06:38 +0200
>
> Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction (UDP
> good)
> From: emi2f...@gmail.com
> To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
> CC: mtzgu...@gmail.com; debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
>
> Hello
>
> Maybe it can the the disks write speed, anayway you can use netstat or ss
> look for Recv-Q Send-Q columns
>
>
> 2013/4/12 John Elliot <johnellio...@hotmail.com>
>
> Thanks again for your help with this.
>
> I've run 500 pings (-c 500 -i 0) in both directions, and got zero loss.
>
> Ill try running tcpdump on both servers, and re-testing to check the
> segments.
>
> Swapping the servers would be extremely difficult ;)  (They are over
> 1000k's apart, and one is in an unmanned(majority of the time) data
> centre.
>
>
>
>
> > From: mtzgu...@gmail.com
> > Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:38:40 -0300
> > Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction
> (UDP good)
> > To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
> > CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Guido Martínez <mtzgu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Did you check if A acknowledges every received segment?
> > Sorry, what I meant by this is if every sent segment from B reaches A.
> > You can run an instance of wireshark on each host to check this.
> > Basically you need to check for packet loss at high speeds (ping could
> > be of use if you set the interval to 0).
> >
> > TCP Dup ACKs are likely caused by packet loss.
> > TCP segment of a reassembled PDU is something Wireshark adds since it
> > interprets a bit about application layer protocols, and I think it's
> > not a reason to worry (I could have understood this wrong, I just
> > looked it up).
> >
> > If it's easy, you could also try swapping the location of the hosts,
> > to see if the problem is on the hosts, or on the link.
> >
> > Hope it helps and post more info if you find any.
> > Guido
> >
> >
> > --
> > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmas...@lists.debian.org
> > Archive:
> http://lists.debian.org/CA++DQUnEPW=oEAHY02MPSXihm-FpoAC3ddYOA0+m=vk...@mail.gmail.com<http://lists.debian.org/CA++DQUnEPW=oEAHY02MPSXihm-FpoAC3ddYOA0+m=VkeQg%40mail.gmail.com>
> >
>
>
>
>
> --
> esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
>
>
>
>
> --
> esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
>



-- 
esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera

Reply via email to