On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 23:47:59 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 07 February 2020 14:29:08 David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using
> > > it. In which case someone has
On Sat 08 Feb 2020 at 10:38:19 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> >> > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once
> >> > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the
> >> > benefits of compression and aggregation.
> >> rsync?
> > Sure, if you're
>> > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once
>> > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the
>> > benefits of compression and aggregation.
>> rsync?
> Sure, if you're updating a tree. But AIUI the OP is transferring
> a kernel source archive
just an ssh -Y connection, which may at times be supplemented as I also
use an sshfs "mount", which works well as long as its user 1000 on both
ends of the cable. Root access is disallowed going either way as part of
my security model here. I've long since given up on ever keeping an nfs
On Vi, 07 feb 20, 23:47:59, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using
> > > it. In which case someone has been playing with mc that has no clue
> > > what they are doing.
>
> Because mc, 22+ years ago was pretty much self-contained. Now,
On Friday 07 February 2020 14:29:08 David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote:
> > > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel
On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 18:49:20 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 07 February 2020 16:24:51 Stefan Monnier wrote:
>
> > > also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch.
> >
> > IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies.
> >
> > > But file moves to/from the machines in the
On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 16:57:59 (-0500), Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once
> > you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the
> > benefits of compression and aggregation.
>
> rsync?
Sure, if you're updating a tree.
On Friday 07 February 2020 16:24:51 Stefan Monnier wrote:
> > also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch.
>
> IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies.
>
> > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate
> > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s
> I'm not aware that there's a faster way of sending the files once
> you've unpacked the archive locally. After all, you've thrown away the
> benefits of compression and aggregation.
rsync?
Stefan
> also claims to be a gigahertz capable switch.
IIRC gigabit ethernet doesn't run at gigahertz frequencies.
> But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate
> theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path.
Is that really 10Mb/s (aka ~1MB/s)?
On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 11:24:46 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote:
>
> > On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for
> > > making and also reached the conclusion
On 2020-02-07 16:24, Gene Heskett wrote:
I don't use fish that I know of. Thats not to say mc isn't using it.
In
which case someone has been playing with mc that has no clue what they
are doing.
mick@slinky:~$ mc
[connect shell link option]
fish: Waiting for initial line...
Enter
On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 07 February 2020 05:53:05 Dan Purgert wrote:
>> [...]
>> a "gigahertz" switch? neat :) (I think you meant gigabit again).
>
> Guilty. Blame it on oldtimers.
Hehe, and I was busy scouring Amazon too...
> [...]
> Anyway, I found an answer, iperf
On Friday 07 February 2020 10:20:45 David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for
> > making and also reached the conclusion that mc was for some reason
> > terminally slow at unpacking an .xz
On Fri 07 Feb 2020 at 08:12:18 (-0500), Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> I was trying different ways to move a kernel src to the pi for making and
> also reached the conclusion that mc was for some reason terminally slow
> at unpacking an .xz kernel and writing the unpack across the network. It
> was
Gene Heskett wrote:
...
> So I stopped that, killed the partial copy, backed out and copied the
> whole image to the pi in just 2 or 3 minutes, with mc, then unxz'd it on
> the pi in maybe 3 minutes. Made sure it was set for arch/arm with a
> bcm2835_defconfig, verified it said fully
On Friday 07 February 2020 06:24:10 Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, at 07:04, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate
> > theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path.
>
> Later you said:
> > But on really big
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, at 07:04, Gene Heskett wrote:
> But file moves to/from the machines in the garage seems to indicate
> theres a slow connection of around 10Mb/s someplace in that path.
Later you said:
> But on really big writes, the ssd's decay to around 17-20 mb/s.
Surely here you meant
On Friday 07 February 2020 05:53:05 Dan Purgert wrote:
> On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that
> > claims to be a gigabit and managed.
> >
> > One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another
On Feb 07, 2020, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims
> to be a gigabit and managed.
>
> One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber
> unmanaged 8 port switch that feeds the machines in the
On Friday 07 February 2020 03:55:32 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 07 feb 20, 03:12:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Which tells me its the poor prolonged write speeds of the ssd's that
> > are the main contributors to the slow big files problem. Not much I
> > can do about that. It is what it is.
>
On Vi, 07 feb 20, 03:12:08, Gene Heskett wrote:
>
> Which tells me its the poor prolonged write speeds of the ssd's that are
> the main contributors to the slow big files problem. Not much I can do
> about that. It is what it is.
If you're into testing you could try transferring to/from RAM
On Friday 07 February 2020 02:44:11 john doe wrote:
> On 2/7/2020 8:04 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that
> > claims to be a gigabit and managed.
> >
> > One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of
On Friday 07 February 2020 02:17:59 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that
> > claims to be a gigabit and managed.
> >
> > One of its ports is connected to the upstream
On 2/7/2020 8:04 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims
> to be a gigabit and managed.
>
> One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber
> unmanaged 8 port switch that feeds the machines in the
On Friday 07 February 2020 02:17:59 Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Greetings all;
> >
> > My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that
> > claims to be a gigabit and managed.
> >
> > One of its ports is connected to the upstream
On Vi, 07 feb 20, 02:04:17, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Greetings all;
>
> My local network has 2 8 port switches, one here in this room that claims
> to be a gigabit and managed.
>
> One of its ports is connected to the upstream port of another dumber
> unmanaged 8 port switch that feeds the
28 matches
Mail list logo
