Hi Guys!
I just cant sleep till i make this thing clear.
We have a 10/100 Mb/s NIC which transmits 33 000 000 Hz x 32 Bytes width = 132
MB/s over PCI 2.2
But how do you guys count 12.5 MB/s in the cable when the NIC has lets say
realtek 8139 25 MHz external clock. and 4 cables to transmit bi-
On Mon, May 29, 2006 8:10 pm, Joao Barros wrote:
> On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am using -CURRENT here, disabling net.inet.tcp.inflight improves the
download rate by 2MB/s!
>>
> How old is that CURRENT? I believe that shouldn't happen after Andre's
commit back in March.
On 5/27/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
> I get 25 to 30MB/sec between FreeBSD 6.0 and Windows XP
> clients with tcp.inflight disabled and interrupt polling enabled
> on a 1gb link without jumbo frames.
>
> The various Linux distributions do about the same on t
Dr. Rich Murphey wrote:
I get 25 to 30MB/sec between FreeBSD 6.0 and Windows XP
clients with tcp.inflight disabled and interrupt polling enabled
on a 1gb link without jumbo frames.
The various Linux distributions do about the same on this hardware -
3ware striped raid arrays, dual xeon, and 2Gb
Mike Jakubik wrote:
Nash Nipples wrote:
Hi Guys,
has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but
still, out of curiosity?
No, not really. The performance of samba on freebsd still sucks. I
have a giga
On 5/25/06, Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nash Nipples wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
>
> i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but still,
out of curiosity?
>
>
No, not really. The performance of samb
> >
>
> I have the same issue here on several different systems. I have not been
> able to get throughput past ~70 megabits. Most times smbd hovers around
> 5-10% CPU usage on a Duron 1200 system. With this one system upgrading from
> a P2-350, to an Athlon 900 to the Duron 1200 have not changed p
Nash Nipples wrote:
Hi Guys,
has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but still, out of curiosity?
No, not really. The performance of samba on freebsd still sucks. I have
a gigabit link between m
On Thu, 25 May 2006 10:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Nash Nipples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
>
> i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but still,
> out of curiosity?
>
> Oh by the way:
> 100 MB et
At 01:42 PM 25/05/2006, Nash Nipples wrote:
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable=1 who said u have to put it down?
When you are on the same subnet, is it not automatically disabled ?
---Mike
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://
Hi Guys,
has anyone actually managed to speed up the thing up to 10-12 MB/s
i have a good 7-9 MB/s on large files and that should be enough, but still, out
of curiosity?
Oh by the way:
100 MB ethernet
ping -s 65507 -f windowshost ~ 10-12 MB/s
ftp open freebsdhost put/get 500MB.file ~ 10-12 M
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:31:03 +
Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >
> > > I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
> > > systems (FreeBSD-current connected dir
On 11/11/05, Mike Tancsa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 08:54 AM 11/11/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
> >Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
> >Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
> > The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
At 08:54 AM 11/11/2005, Joao Barros wrote:
Copyright (c) 1992-2005 The FreeBSD Project.
Copyright (c) 1979, 1980, 1983, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994
The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
FreeBSD 6.0-RELEASE #5: Thu Nov 10 13:57:54 WET 2005
[EMAI
On 11/11/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
>
> > I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at
> > work both with a RAID1. Even better, there is a part in my initial email
> > where I mention that having a 700MB file cac
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Joao Barros wrote:
I tried using a single drive, an IDE and a SCSI-2 and on 2 machines at
work both with a RAID1. Even better, there is a part in my initial email
where I mention that having a 700MB file cached (iostat reported no
reads) the results were the same. With thi
On 11/9/05, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, Joao,
>
> > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> > should have done it here, my apologies for that.
> >
> > After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start
> > clean here with all my
On 11/10/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mike Jakubik wrote:
>
> > I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
> > systems (FreeBSD-current connected directly to Windows XP via identical
> > Intel Pro 1000 cards) and my only conclusion is
I recently upgraded to gigabit and was expecting faster Samba performance
as well. I don't recall the exact numbers but net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0
did help quite a bit on my box.
I too tried mtu (intel cards and SMC jumbo switch) and polling but the
transfer rates would max out around 10megs/sec
On 11/10/05, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/10/05, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mike Jakubik wrote:
> >
> > > I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
> > > systems (FreeBSD-current connected directly to Windows XP via
On 11/9/05, Arkadi Shishlov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joao Barros wrote:
> > On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
> > I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
> > Windows 2003 Server while doing a cached read.
> > I can get up to 70% bandw
On 11/9/05, Michael Vince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joao Barros wrote:
>
> >Hi,
> >
> >Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> >should have done it here, my apologies for that.
> >
> >After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start
> >clean h
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:48:14 -0500
Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert Watson wrote:
> > There are a number of TCP related configuration frobs on FreeBSD. It
> > would be quite interesting to know how modifying each of the following
> > settings affects Samba performance:
> >
> > n
Robert Watson wrote:
There are a number of TCP related configuration frobs on FreeBSD. It
would be quite interesting to know how modifying each of the following
settings affects Samba performance:
net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack
net.inet.tcp.sack.enable
net.inet.tcp.inflight.enable
There has been r
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Mike Jakubik wrote:
I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
systems (FreeBSD-current connected directly to Windows XP via identical
Intel Pro 1000 cards) and my only conclusion is that Samba on FreeBSD
when talking to a Windows box is simply fu
Nick Evans wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:24:18 -0500
Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have done many tests to try to determine the poor performance on my
systems (FreeBSD-current connected directly to Windows XP via identical
Intel Pro 1000 cards) and my only conclusion is that Sa
Just did a few quick tests on 5.4 here ( not upgraded to 6.0 yet )
and on Gig I get a max of 20Mb/s using samba with the following
options:
socket options = TCP_NODELAY SO_RCVBUF=131072 SO_SNDBUF=131072
max xmit = 131072
With ftp I can get 45Mb/s
Steve
==
On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:24:18 -0500
Mike Jakubik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
> > Joao Barros wrote:
> >
> >> On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
> >> I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
> >> Windows 2003 Serve
Arkadi Shishlov wrote:
Joao Barros wrote:
On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
Windows 2003 Server while doing a cached read.
I can get up to 70% bandwith during writes.
Percentages are relative
Joao Barros wrote:
> On a P4 3.06GHz with HTT enabled and ULE I get the same results.
> I get a flat line at 58% looking at the bandwith in task manager on a
> Windows 2003 Server while doing a cached read.
> I can get up to 70% bandwith during writes.
> Percentages are relative to 100Mbits bandwit
On 11/9/05, Joao Barros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 11/9/05, Jeremie Le Hen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, Joao,
> >
> > > Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> > > should have done it here, my apologies for that.
> > >
> > > After my initial post I did so
Hi, Joao,
> Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
> should have done it here, my apologies for that.
>
> After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start
> clean here with all my findings :)
>
> I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733MH
Joao Barros wrote:
Hi,
Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
should have done it here, my apologies for that.
After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start
clean here with all my findings :)
I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733
Hi,
Last month I started a thread[1] on current@ about this, but I guess I
should have done it here, my apologies for that.
After my initial post I did some more testing and I'm going to start
clean here with all my findings :)
I started with Samba 3 installed on a PIII 733MHz with fxp (82559) a
34 matches
Mail list logo
