> > are you sure about your figures? the latter seems unrealistic especially > > if they have the same physical specs. did Windows provided you the transfer > > rate? or are you the one who manually timed it?
They don't have the same specs but i'm expecting the samba server to perform slower but not that slow and yes I manually timed it and tested copying it a couple of times and that was the best time I got. Anyways, I think I found the culprit, I tested the network throughput using iperf and the result seems ok but I still tried to use an old trusty PCI 3com 3c905 instead of the built in gigabit nic and I was surprised when the transfer from my workstation to samba server was reduced to around 2mins18sec. I'll continue testing this later when I get back at the office. What do you think of the benchmark result? Is it acceptable for the specs? and one more thing do SATA drives really get that HOT, I can barely hold it even when the case is open and inside our airconditioned server room, I think we need to buy additional case fans for this things. :-) Thanks for the replies. :-) -- Carlo Roy V. Taguinod Linux Registered User #283313 -- Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Official Website: http://plug.linux.org.ph Searchable Archives: http://marc.free.net.ph . To leave, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/plug . Are you a Linux newbie? To join the newbie list, go to http://lists.q-linux.com/mailman/listinfo/ph-linux-newbie
