Hi, Celejar
On 09/09/16 18:18, Celejar wrote:
My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
hardware can match or b
Hi, deloptes.
On 09/09/16 19:06, deloptes wrote:
>> Still, 20-24 Mbps is more than 10 Mpbs I was seeing with rsync. There
>> could be a bottleneck somewhere?
> In my case it was the IO on the disk - I couldn't do more than 12Mbps even
> on wired connection, because I have encrypted disk ... it t
On Sat, 10 Sep 2016 10:53:20 -0400
rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > It's in megabytes per seco
On 09/10/2016 07:23 PM, Celejar wrote:
> FTR: there seem to be more typos / here. The actual figure should be
> 11034157.6344 bits/second.
Yes, let's whip those typos out of this dead horse some more:
On 09/09/2016 08:36 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> Benchmarking using WiFi (48 Mb/s):
>
> 2
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 20:43:44 -0700
David Christensen wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 12:43 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> > On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps);
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 20:36:39 -0700
David Christensen wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 11:51 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
> > David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wir
On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:53:20 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > > It's in megabytes per
On 09/10/2016 07:53 AM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
>> You make an assumption many folks do, but theres a start bit and a stop
>> bit so the math is more like 1000/10=100 Mb/s.
>
>
> Well, 1000/8 is still 125 ;-) but I wouldn't have
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 10:40:26 AM Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > > It's in megabytes per second, so assume 1000/8 = 250 MB/s is the
> > > bandwidth of a gigabit et
On Saturday 10 September 2016 10:26:15 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> > It's in megabytes per second, so assume 1000/8 = 250 MB/s is the
> > bandwidth of a gigabit ethernet NIC.
>
> Sorry, I tend to pick at nits, but, for the record, 100
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 08:41:53 AM Dan Ritter wrote:
> It's in megabytes per second, so assume 1000/8 = 250 MB/s is the
> bandwidth of a gigabit ethernet NIC.
Sorry, I tend to pick at nits, but, for the record, 1000/8 is 125 Mb/s. It
doesn't (really) change your conclusions.
regards,
R
On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 01:22:45AM -0400, Neal P. Murphy wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 23:14:30 -0500
> David Wright wrote:
>
> Good eye! I was going to say it's not possible to get 110Mb/s over 802.11g;
> 40-50 is closer tothe best I get. And 193Mb/s over 100Mb/s ethernet is right
> out; best I'
On 09/09/2016 09:14 PM, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 09 Sep 2016 at 20:36:39 (-0700), David Christensen wrote:
>> So, 1048576900 bytes * 8 bits / byte / 76.024 seconds
> ↑
>
> What's this 9?
A typographical error.
104857600 bytes * 8 bits/byte / 76.024 seconds
= 11034158 bits/secon
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 23:14:30 -0500
David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 09 Sep 2016 at 20:36:39 (-0700), David Christensen wrote:
> > On 09/09/2016 11:51 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
> > > David Christensen wrote:
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiF
On Fri 09 Sep 2016 at 20:36:39 (-0700), David Christensen wrote:
> On 09/09/2016 11:51 AM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
> > David Christensen wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps).
On 09/09/2016 12:43 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:
>> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
>> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
>> slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the ne
On 09/09/2016 11:51 AM, Celejar wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
> David Christensen wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
>> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
>> slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be
Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> Still, 20-24 Mbps is more than 10 Mpbs I was seeing with rsync. There
> could be a bottleneck somewhere?
In my case it was the IO on the disk - I couldn't do more than 12Mbps even
on wired connection, because I have encrypted disk ... it took me a while
to understand why t
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 16:46:35 -0300
Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> Hi, Celejar.
>
> On 09/09/16 15:51, Celejar wrote:
>
> >> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
> >> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
> >> slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) shou
Hi, Celejar.
On 09/09/16 15:51, Celejar wrote:
>> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
>> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
>> slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
>> hardware can match or beat Gig
Hi, David.
Thanks for your reply.
On 09/08/16 22:57, David Christensen wrote:
>> As you can see, the transfer was over than 3 GB and it were not hung. I
>> did several tests and all were without problems.
>>
>> I wonder if in the mentioned episodes of hangs you remember whether the
>> transferre
On Tue, 9 Aug 2016 18:57:02 -0700
David Christensen wrote:
...
> My laptop has 802.11 a/b/g WiFi and Fast Ethernet. Wireless data
> transfers are slow (~50 Mbps). Wired is twice as fast (100 Mbps); still
> slow. Newer WiFi (n, ac) should be faster, but only the newest WiFi
> hardware can matc
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askpfeplat/2016/05/02/installing-bash-on-ubuntu-on-windows-10-insider-preview/
I recently upgraded a Windows 10 PC to the last 1607 build: with the
developper mode enabled, one have access to "windows subsystem for linux
(beta)". the official Microsoft port of Ubuntu bash.
sshd is part of the bundle (I've not tested it, though).
On 08/09/2016 04:27 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> As you can see, the transfer was over than 3 GB and it were not hung. I
> did several tests and all were without problems.
>
> I wonder if in the mentioned episodes of hangs you remember whether the
> transferred volume was higher or lower than in th
Best options is put an SMB/NFS share for all the windows clients on your
backup server.
RAID it and run $whatever backup tools you wish on the exports.
If you need OS level backups, the best way is to use ISCSI mounts served
from the NAS/SAN to be the root of the windows machines.
On 3 August 20
Hi, Didier.
On 03/08/16 05:30, didier gaumet wrote:
>> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
>> server [...] on Windows.
> Apart from a Cygwin solution, it seems there is an open official
> Microsoft OpenSSH port (including SSHD service) effort:
>
> https://blog
Hi, David.
On 09/08/16 00:21, David Christensen wrote:
>> He also mentions a [Cygwin rsync] problem to doing backup over open files.
>> Have you
>> experienced that problem?
> I'm not sure. It's been many moons since I tried to do automated
> backups of Windows machines using rsync.
Well, I'
On 08/08/2016 11:29 PM, David Christensen wrote:
On 08/08/2016 01:05 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
We also have security
implications as the backup server and the Windows computer are in
different offices, so the backup would be over the Internet.
For security, you can use an SSH tunnel (Cygwin
On 08/08/2016 01:05 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> We also have security
> implications as the backup server and the Windows computer are in
> different offices, so the backup would be over the Internet.
For security, you can use an SSH tunnel (Cygwin openssh on the Windows
machine).
Backing up ove
On 08/08/2016 11:25 AM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> He also mentions a [Cygwin rsync] problem to doing backup over open files.
> Have you
> experienced that problem?
I'm not sure. It's been many moons since I tried to do automated
backups of Windows machines using rsync.
> An alternative that I th
Hi, Glenn.
On 08/08/16 18:34, Glenn English wrote:
>>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>>> clients, but now I would l
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:12:33PM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>> c
Hi, Darac.
On 03/08/16 05:49, Darac Marjal wrote:
>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>> clients, but now I would like a
Hi, David.
On 03/08/16 00:23, David Christensen wrote:
>> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
>> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
>> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
>> clients, but now I would l
On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 06:12:33PM -0300, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
Hi all!
I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
clients, but now I w
Le 02/08/2016 à 23:12, Daniel Bareiro a écrit :
[...]
> But to use Dirvish with Windows clients I will need to install an SSH
> server [...] on Windows.
[...]
Apart from a Cygwin solution, it seems there is an open official
Microsoft OpenSSH port (including SSHD service) effort:
https://blogs.ms
On 08/02/2016 02:12 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote:
> I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
> on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
> occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
> clients, but now I would like add Windows
Hi all!
I'm thinking deploy a Debian backup server using Dirvish (which is based
on rsync --- indeed, we have packaged it in Debian). On previous
occasions I implemented these solutions seamlessly with GNU/Linux
clients, but now I would like add Windows clients.
The idea of using Dirvish is becau
39 matches
Mail list logo
