On 13 janv. 2007, at 15:31, R. B. Riddick wrote:
--- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've connected the em0 port of the freebsd box on a gigabit PCI-X NIC
I have in the Mac, and given a second try to the "dd | nc" client/
server bench: 103 MB/s. This is far better !
Same setup wit
--- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've connected the em0 port of the freebsd box on a gigabit PCI-X NIC
> I have in the Mac, and given a second try to the "dd | nc" client/
> server bench: 103 MB/s. This is far better !
> Same setup with apache 1.3 on the mac, wget on the Freeb
Thank you all for your help.
I've finally found the bottleneck: the onboard PowerMac ethernet port.
After verification, changing network cables was not an option, I've
used on this connection a cat. 7 network cable.
I've connected the em0 port of the freebsd box on a gigabit PCI-X NIC
I hav
On 13/01/2007 10:08 AM, Patrick Proniewski wrote:
the FreeBSD has 1 GB DDR2 ECC, 2 250GB SATA II HDD (but motherboard
controler is on SATA I) and uses pf:
# pfctl -s all
TRANSLATION RULES:
nat on fxp0 inet from 192.168.0.0/24 to any -> (fxp0) round-robin
FILTER RULES:
scrub in all fragment rea
R. B. Riddick wrote:
> --- Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've found iperf to be more useful.
>>
> Soso... Was it slower? Or what?
List of options for tcpblast:
> tcpblast
usage: tcpblast [-4] [-6] destination nblkocks
blocksize: 1024 bytes 0
List of options for iperf:
> iperf --help
Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Quick testing suggests that an Apache child process accumulates a
> similar amount of CPU time transferring large files as scp when using an
> SSL connection;
As expected. Though the original poster didn't mention using SSL, as far
as I can see.
signature.asc
Descriptio
On 12 janv. 2007, at 23:01, Lucas Holt wrote:
The first two things I would try beyond the sysctls mentioned would
be to try another network cable,
ok, added to the todo list ;)
and view your firewall configuration on both machines very
carefully. What are the specifications on the Mac?
On Jan 12, 2007, at 8:07 AM, R. B. Riddick wrote:
As the "OP" (what is that exactly? again an animal?) mentioned:
Apache performs
worse than scp.
Quick testing suggests that an Apache child process accumulates a
similar amount of CPU time transferring large files as scp when using
an SSL
--- Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2007, at 8:07 AM, R. B. Riddick wrote:
> > As the "OP" (what is that exactly? again an animal?) mentioned:
> > Apache performs
> > worse than scp.
>
> Quick testing suggests that an Apache child process accumulates a
> similar amount of
"R. B. Riddick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for
>> every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB
>> (and scp occasionally), but I've still to choose and co
Patrick Proniewski wrote:
> On 12 janv. 07, at 11:45, R. B. Riddick wrote:
>
>> --- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for
>>> every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB
>>> (and scp occasionally
--- Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R. B. Riddick wrote:
> > We had that problem before: Some HTTP server implementations just dont
> > bring it... :-) thttpd is quite efficient, I have heard...
>
> This is a red herring. The OP reports he transfers a single file - http
> server performanc
R. B. Riddick wrote:
> We had that problem before: Some HTTP server implementations just dont bring
> it... :-) thttpd is quite efficient, I have heard...
This is a red herring. The OP reports he transfers a single file - http
server performance cannot even approach to influence the performance i
R. B. Riddick wrote:
--- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for
every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB
(and scp occasionally), but I've still to choose and configure
appropriate servers
On 12 janv. 07, at 11:45, R. B. Riddick wrote:
--- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for
every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB
(and scp occasionally), but I've still to choose and configure
--- Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll give FTP a try, but I would like the network to be fast for
> every protocols. I'm planning to share data using NFS, WebDAV, or SMB
> (and scp occasionally), but I've still to choose and configure
> appropriate servers.
>
We had that p
Hi Dominic,
On 12 janv. 07, at 10:35, Dominic Marks wrote:
File transfert through em0 looks quite slow : at best 17 MB/s (scp
gives better results than http, tested with a 120MB file)
File copy, from one HDD to another or from one HDD to /dev/null,
ranges from 30 to 48 MB/s on the FreeBSD side
On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:00:47 +0100
Patrick Proniewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm the happy owner of a Tyan Tiger i7520SD motherboard, sporting two
> ethernet ports using a Intel 82571EB GbE controller and running
> FreeBSD 6.2 RC1. FreeBSD uses the em driver for this ports:
>
Hello,
I'm the happy owner of a Tyan Tiger i7520SD motherboard, sporting two
ethernet ports using a Intel 82571EB GbE controller and running
FreeBSD 6.2 RC1. FreeBSD uses the em driver for this ports:
dmesg excerpt:
em0: port
0x2000-0x201f mem 0xd802-0xd803,0xd800-0xd801
19 matches
Mail list logo
