Hi,
I am having performance issues with my file server running SUSE Linux
10.0 (64bit on an Athlon64). The systems data disks consist of 4
200GB Samsung SATA drives on separate onboard ports on the motherboard
which are then configured together as md0 using Linux software raid5
(giving 600GB usa
John,
Ok, I've tested again with both samba and SFTP. Samba is
significantly quicker than SFTP with the iso file copying in ~5-6
minutes instead of the 35+ being shown by SFTP. But looking at top
whilst the processes are running the system is doing virtually nothing
during both transfers, (both
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Tim Hempstead wrote:
> Accessing the system via samba from a Windows XP box seems quite slow
> as does accessing it via SFTP, (a sustained SFTP transfer using
> Filezilla peaked at 310kb/s a 670MB iso image has just taken 35+
> minutes to transfer across between them)
Am Dienstag, den 13.03.2007, 09:50 -0900 schrieb John Andersen:
> I just copied a 350meg iso across 100mbit network via samba in under 10
> minutes.
> It pegged my linux nic at 7.4 meg for the duration according to gkrellm.
I normally see 10M traffic in gkrellm when I copy stuff to and from my
nf
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Anders Johansson wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 13.03.2007, 09:50 -0900 schrieb John Andersen:
> > I just copied a 350meg iso across 100mbit network via samba in under 10
> > minutes.
> > It pegged my linux nic at 7.4 meg for the duration according to gkrellm.
>
> I normally se
On 3/13/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you will find that on local networks where nothing is less
than 100meg that ssh is quite a bit slower than a well tuned
nfs.
As you said the magic word "well tuned nfs" ... :)
Please, define well-tuned. Or direct me to a very nice
On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:17 -0500, Sunny wrote:
> On 3/13/07, John Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think you will find that on local networks where nothing is less
> > than 100meg that ssh is quite a bit slower than a well tuned
> > nfs.
> >
>
> As you said the magic word "well tuned
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Sunny wrote:
> Please, define well-tuned. Or direct me to a very nice tutorial for
> this.
Oh, no you don't Fella! ;-)
I am not an nfs techie. I know very little about it, and only use
if for MythTV shares, and I took the parms directly out of the
mythtv how-to. So I'm
On Tuesday 13 March 2007, Tim Hempstead wrote:
> John,
>
> Ok, I've tested again with both samba and SFTP. Samba is
> significantly quicker than SFTP with the iso file copying in ~5-6
> minutes instead of the 35+ being shown by SFTP. But looking at top
> whilst the processes are running the syste
Its certainly strange, the samba transfer rate is more the sort of
level I was expecting. Top is supposedly showing nice time as well,
and running a straight sar instead also gave the same results.
Disabling ipv6, UseDNS(*), compression on the SFTP windows client all
made little or no difference
On Tuesday 13 March 2007 21:14, John Andersen wrote:
> Have you tried to move a 650meg iso across nfs, and then do the
> same move across ssh from and to the same source/destination?
>
> I think you will find that on local networks where nothing is less
> than 100meg that ssh is quite a bit slower
On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Anders Johansson wrote:
> Just in case you're still interested, I'm doing this now, and I'm getting a
> constant data rate of over 10MB/s (in real data, not bits over the wire).
> This means a 100MB file transfers in 9 seconds, or 1024MB in 1 minute 34
> seconds. All usi
On Thursday 15 March 2007 06:48, John Andersen wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007, Anders Johansson wrote:
> > Just in case you're still interested, I'm doing this now, and I'm getting
> > a constant data rate of over 10MB/s (in real data, not bits over the
> > wire). This means a 100MB file trans
John Andersen wrote:
> My point was, that without testing a samba or nfs transfer
> you have no way of judging the load imposed by scp.
>
I kind of wish there was a flag to tell scp to negotiate the password in
a secure way, but *not* to encrypt the transfer. Often, when I'm
copying files over
But scp is so convenient for doing copies compared to the
trouble of setting up an NFS mount (and then dealing with processes
hanging in the D state every time the server is down.)
--
I use rsync and ssh to backup our home directories and the initial
transfer of my folder was about 2.0+ GB and
On Friday 16 March 2007, David Brodbeck wrote:
> John Andersen wrote:
> > My point was, that without testing a samba or nfs transfer
> > you have no way of judging the load imposed by scp.
>
> I kind of wish there was a flag to tell scp to negotiate the password in
> a secure way, but *not* to encr
16 matches
Mail list logo
