-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-03-22 00:53, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Forgot one thing:
...
For me the slowness in WAN is about latency.
...
I've tried to address this with faster DNS, installing BIND etc,
but with no notable improvement. Is this
Hello Derrick,
Am 16.03.2012 14:32, wrote Derrick Brashear:
the human who generates the web page failed to.
said human has just fixed it.
thanks a lot :)
best regards
Thomas Sesselmann
--
Thomas Sesselmann, Dipl.-Inf.
Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 08:42:16 +0100
Lars Schimmer l.schim...@cgv.tugraz.at wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2012-03-22 00:53, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Forgot one thing:
...
For me the slowness in WAN is about latency.
...
I've tried to address
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:18:44 -0400
chas williams - CONTRACTOR c...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
but besides this limit, there is also another determining factor in
rx. rx, like tcp, negotiates a window of data to send before waiting
for an ack from the other side which lets me data get sent. if
On 22 Mar 2012, at 15:09, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:18:44 -0400
chas williams - CONTRACTOR c...@cmf.nrl.navy.mil wrote:
but besides this limit, there is also another determining factor in
rx. rx, like tcp, negotiates a window of data to send before waiting
for an ack
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:20:20 +
Simon Wilkinson simonxwilkin...@gmail.com wrote:
That limit is imposed because it is the point at which the current RX
implementation loses the queue efficiency/throughput tradeoff. You can
run with a larger window size, but it will actually make things go
On 22 Mar 2012, at 15:23, Andrew Deason wrote:
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:20:20 +
Simon Wilkinson simonxwilkin...@gmail.com wrote:
That limit is imposed because it is the point at which the current RX
implementation loses the queue efficiency/throughput tradeoff. You can
run with a larger
The lacks large window sizes is unlikely the issue in this case. The use case
is reading large numbers of small files which require a separate RPC for each
object. An 8MB window size won't help when the file sizes are small and the
number of files is large. The RPC latency * number of RPCs
Hi all,
here are some ping results outside LAN:
1.62 1.80 1.62 2.33 1.69 1.64 1.75 2.35 5.77 3.85 4.69 2.73 ...
The internet speed is the same 100/5.
I just moved ~20M/~2000 files
AFS to SSH server ~220KB/s
SSH server to AFS ~80KB/s
The client was in WAN this time, whereas
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:43:50 +0200 (EET)
jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
I just moved ~20M/~2000 files
Do you mean each file is 20M? Or you moved 2000 files, and added
together they form 20M of data in total?
AFS to SSH server ~220KB/s
SSH server to AFS ~80KB/s
The client was in
On 3/22/2012 3:43 PM, jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
Hi all,
here are some ping results outside LAN:
1.62 1.80 1.62 2.33 1.69 1.64 1.75 2.35 5.77 3.85 4.69 2.73 ...
The internet speed is the same 100/5.
I just moved ~20M/~2000 files
AFS to SSH server ~220KB/s
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:43:50 +0200 (EET)
jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
I just moved ~20M/~2000 files
Do you mean each file is 20M? Or you moved 2000 files, and added
together they form 20M of data in total?
20M in total
AFS to SSH server ~220KB/s
SSH server to AFS ~80KB/s
I tried turning off encryption, but it didn't make a notable difference
with either file transfer test
br, jukka
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 21:43:50 +0200 (EET)
jukka.tuomi...@finndesign.fi wrote:
I just moved ~20M/~2000 files
Do you mean each file is 20M? Or you moved 2000 files, and added
13 matches
Mail list logo
