[ moved to -chat, since this has no business being in -hackers anymore ]
> > > Probably true, but the better solution is to find something else (or
> > > make something else) that doesn't completely suck like TFTP does.
> >
> > Because it's used so rarely, having it suck every once in a while is
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 02:07:32PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > Probably true, but the better solution is to find something else (or
> > make something else) that doesn't completely suck like TFTP does.
>
> Because it's used so rarely, having it suck every once in a while isn't
> so bad. TFTP
> > [ TFTP performance is poor ]
> >
> > > > > USE TFTP to get a tiny image up, and then go TCP.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Going to TCP soon assumes that you have a lossless medium in order to
> > > > transmit packets over. If you're using a lossy medium, TFTP (and other
> > > > UDP based protoco
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:34:24PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> [ TFTP performance is poor ]
>
> > > > USE TFTP to get a tiny image up, and then go TCP.
> > >
> > >
> > > Going to TCP soon assumes that you have a lossless medium in order to
> > > transmit packets over. If you're using a lossy
Nate Williams wrote:
> > Maybe 802.11b. 8-(.
>
> Exactly! Or, something that boots remotely over satellite (for easier
> maintenance).
Or cable modems, booting from the cable plant.
Actually, there's a lot of uses, the more you think about it,
even though I think you'd have to be pretty insan
> > Going to TCP soon assumes that you have a lossless medium in order to
> > transmit packets over. If you're using a lossy medium, TFTP (and other
> > UDP based protocols) can kick their butt because of TCP's assumption
> > that packet loss is a function of congestion, which is often not the
>
Nate Williams wrote:
> Going to TCP soon assumes that you have a lossless medium in order to
> transmit packets over. If you're using a lossy medium, TFTP (and other
> UDP based protocols) can kick their butt because of TCP's assumption
> that packet loss is a function of congestion, which is oft
[ TFTP performance is poor ]
> > > USE TFTP to get a tiny image up, and then go TCP.
> >
> >
> > Going to TCP soon assumes that you have a lossless medium in order to
> > transmit packets over. If you're using a lossy medium, TFTP (and other
> > UDP based protocols) can kick their butt because
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:46:34AM -0600, Nate Williams wrote:
> > > > No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP. If you
> > > > want performance, use something else.
> > > It's even in the manpage:
> > > Sendfile() sends a regular file specified by descriptor fd out a stream
>
> > > No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP. If you
> > > want performance, use something else.
> > It's even in the manpage:
> > Sendfile() sends a regular file specified by descriptor fd out a stream
> > socket specified by descriptor s.
> >
> > Silly me. BTW, I can't us
Attila Nagy wrote:
> With Danny's tftpd I could get 16-17 Mbps with one machine (this is what
> the client says) and around 4 Mbps per client at a concurrency of 24
> machines.
> That's about 90-96 Mbps.
>
> I will try do more benchmarks with an accurate method, once I could figure
> out what sho
Attila Nagy wrote:
> > No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP. If you
> > want performance, use something else.
> It's even in the manpage:
> Sendfile() sends a regular file specified by descriptor fd out a stream
> socket specified by descriptor s.
>
> Silly me. BTW, I can
Attila Nagy wrote:
> > Only if all file transfers were binary, or all ASCII files were stored
> > on the host with line termination, instead of . That's the
> > same reason sendfile() is stupid for POP3, IMAP4, and SMTP servers...
>
> Hmm. Both FTP and TFTP supports ASCII and binary transfers, a
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Multicast! BootIX (nee InCom) have support for this in their BootROMS. it
> might not be hard to hack into Etherboot et al.
bproc now uses multicast for distributing new kernels and init ram disks,
if you want to see an example. It's on sourceforge.
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP. If you
> > want performance, use something else.
> It's even in the manpage:
> Sendfile() sends a regular file specified by descriptor fd out a stream
> socket specified by descr
> Would it be possible to use sendfile in tftpd?
Nope, since as someone else has pointed out, tftp uses UDP and not TCP.
The problem with TFTP is the protocol, not the implementation. It's got
a window size of 'one', so the speed is limited by the latency between
the two host
Hello,
> i've had this modified tftpd for some time now,
> o - it's single threaded - runs as daemon and does not fork new children
Basically, I don't have any problems with the inetd startup. It can be
rate limited, etc.
> o - it caches files
How? Doesn't leaving this job to the OS
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 12:29:03PM +0200, Attila Nagy wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Would it be possible to use sendfile in tftpd?
> With an Athlon XP 1600+ I could only get ~40 Mbps out from the machine
> with 0% idle CPU time (large file transfers from many machines, getting
i've had this modified tftpd for some time now,
o - it's single threaded - runs as daemon and does not fork new children
o - it caches files
o - uses mmap
o - knows about some of the newer tftp stuff - mainly blocksize.
it's been running for some years now, and late
Hello,
> No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP. If you
> want performance, use something else.
It's even in the manpage:
Sendfile() sends a regular file specified by descriptor fd out a stream
socket specified by descriptor s.
Silly me. BTW, I can't use anything else. Are
Hello,
> Only if all file transfers were binary, or all ASCII files were stored
> on the host with line termination, instead of . That's the
> same reason sendfile() is stupid for POP3, IMAP4, and SMTP servers...
Hmm. Both FTP and TFTP supports ASCII and binary transfers, am I right?
In libexec/
AN> Would it be possible to use sendfile in tftpd?
AN> With an Athlon XP 1600+ I could only get ~40 Mbps out from the machine
AN> with 0% idle CPU time (large file transfers from many machines, getting
AN> the same file).
No, sendfile() is only for TCP connections, TFTP is using UDP.
Attila Nagy wrote:
> Would it be possible to use sendfile in tftpd?
> With an Athlon XP 1600+ I could only get ~40 Mbps out from the machine
> with 0% idle CPU time (large file transfers from many machines, getting
> the same file).
Only if all file transfers were binary, or all ASCI
Hello,
Would it be possible to use sendfile in tftpd?
With an Athlon XP 1600+ I could only get ~40 Mbps out from the machine
with 0% idle CPU time (large file transfers from many machines, getting
the same file).
Thanks,
[ Free Software ISOs - ftp://ftp.fsn.hu/pub/CDROM-Images
24 matches
Mail list logo
