Hi all,
I spent some time trying to track down slow tcp performance on a small
office switched 100 LAN. We just put in a number of whitebox PCs running
FreeBSD 6.1-p2/PC-BSD 1.2 that all have onboard Via Rhine 10/100 ethernet
controllers. Performace with scp was around 200KB/s, ftp wavered b
On 12/4/06, Charles Sprickman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Jorn Argelo wrote:
> Jamie Clark wrote:
>> Steven Hartland wrote:
>>> Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Backing up the 4.10 box was within an acceptable margin of wire
> speed (~8MB/s on 100M ethernet) given that a rou
Charles Sprickman wrote:
[snipped]
Performace with scp was around 200KB/s, ftp
wavered between 300-500KB/s. This did not appear to be a duplex
mismatch - unmanaged switch showed them all at 100/Full, put some other
hosts on the same ports/cabling and got near wire speed.
I just checked wit
On Wed, 29 Nov 2006, Philipp Ost wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
[snipped]
Performace with scp was around 200KB/s, ftp wavered between 300-500KB/s.
This did not appear to be a duplex mismatch - unmanaged switch showed them
all at 100/Full, put some other hosts on the same ports/cabling and got
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 10:50:17PM -0500, Charles Sprickman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I spent some time trying to track down slow tcp performance on a small
> office switched 100 LAN. We just put in a number of whitebox PCs running
> FreeBSD 6.1-p2/PC-BSD 1.2 that all have onboard Via Rhine 10/
Charles Sprickman wrote:
I also did a little more digging and noticed that once I start pinging
from one of these hosts using large packet sizes, I get about 50-60%
packet loss (ie: ping -s 1500 other.vr0.host). If I ping something with
a decent card, I get about 30-50% packet loss. There's
Philipp Ost wrote:
> Charles Sprickman wrote:
> [snipped]
>> Performace with scp was around 200KB/s, ftp wavered between
>> 300-500KB/s. This did not appear to be a duplex mismatch - unmanaged
>> switch showed them all at 100/Full, put some other hosts on the same
>> ports/cabling and got near wir
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
I also did a little more digging and noticed that once I start pinging
from one of these hosts using large packet sizes, I get about 50-60%
packet loss (ie: ping -s 1500 other.vr0.host). If I ping something
with a decent card, I get about 30-50%
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
I plugged in the card today, and seem to get pretty reasonable
performance (8-10MB/s for scp - see attached).
sorry, forgot to add... this is on:
6.2-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-PRERELEASE #0: Tue Nov 28 23:55:20 NZDT 2006
with a kernel that differs a small amount from GEN
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
I also did a little more digging and noticed that once I start pinging
from one of these hosts using large packet sizes, I get about 50-60%
packet loss (ie: ping -s 1500 other.vr0.host). If I ping somethi
Hi,
I'm not sure if I'm much help, I have the same chipset, VIA Rhine II on
a 6.1-p10 and works fine on a production server
# pciconf -lv
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:18:0: class=0x02 card=0x1421147b chip=0x30651106 rev=0x78
hdr=0x00
vendor = 'VIA Technologies Inc'
device = 'VT6102 Rhine
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Hi all,
I spent some time trying to track down slow tcp performance on a small
office switched 100 LAN. We just put in a number of whitebox PCs
running FreeBSD 6.1-p2/PC-BSD 1.2 that all have onboard Via Rhine
10/100 ethernet controllers. Performace with scp was aro
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Jamie Clark wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Hi all,
I spent some time trying to track down slow tcp performance on a small
office switched 100 LAN. We just put in a number of whitebox PCs running
FreeBSD 6.1-p2/PC-BSD 1.2 that all have onboard Via Rhine 10/100 ethernet
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Backing up the 4.10 box was within an acceptable margin of wire
speed (~8MB/s on 100M ethernet) given that a router was in the
middle. That's roughly how the box has always performed.
After installing 6.1_RELEASE and updating to RELENG_6 I started the
restore. Maxed out
Steven Hartland wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Backing up the 4.10 box was within an acceptable margin of wire
speed (~8MB/s on 100M ethernet) given that a router was in the
middle. That's roughly how the box has always performed.
After installing 6.1_RELEASE and updating to RELENG_6 I started
Jamie Clark wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Backing up the 4.10 box was within an acceptable margin of wire
speed (~8MB/s on 100M ethernet) given that a router was in the
middle. That's roughly how the box has always performed.
After installing 6.1_RELEASE and updating t
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Jorn Argelo wrote:
Jamie Clark wrote:
Steven Hartland wrote:
Charles Sprickman wrote:
Backing up the 4.10 box was within an acceptable margin of wire
speed (~8MB/s on 100M ethernet) given that a router was in the
middle. That's roughly how the box has always performed.
Af
17 matches
Mail list logo
