100baseTX: theoretical max speed (half duplex): 100Mb/sec / 8 = 12.5MB/sec
My laptop ide harddrive (read): 16.45 MB/sec
A single harddrive will be able to handle network traffic in most cases.
For a server it should have some sort of raid subsystem with multiple
drives which will allow it to exceed network traffic. You'll never see
that theoretical maximum however, not with ethernet. An average file
transfer over 100baseTX might be 3-4 MB/sec. However I've been able to
get one of my linux servers to accept a sustained rate of about
10MB/sec. This was done by having samba on the linux server. Then I
copied many GBs of data to it simultaneously from 5 windows nt and 2000
servers and clients.
The console tool I used to monitor my traffic is iptraf. The command
iptraf -g will show general statistics. It can be configured to show
bits or bytes, dump traffic, and many other statistics and information.
I recommend it for bandwidth monitoring.
Cory
On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 08:33:15PM -0700, Ben Barrett wrote:
> Right-o! The latest Samba knows about NFS and they should respect each
> others' file-locks. You might consider using *only* one or the other,
> if you tend toward manic about network traffic; there are only a few
> options for doing NFS on windows, though... Samba does the SMB protocol
> better than M$ on the other hand! NFS is UDP, so you might want to find
> out if your network device (the SMC Barricade?) is a full-speed switch
> or has the limiting problems of older routers: you'll want full-speed
> 100baseTX, with full duplex to connect the machines that will be doing
> the major file-sharing, right folks? I'm not sure off the top of my
> head, but I think our hard drives are fast enough to use 100base...
> I've mostly done SCP ("SSH's FTP") for moving files around even trusted
> networks... but it is certainly not as convenient as having a mount
> point (or drag-n-drop, although gui SCP clients are sweet too).
> Set up two major samba shares, where I've worked, they've been great and
> are on an IDE-RAID, striped. Very solid; the only problems I've had are
> on linux clients, which have shares mounted, when I restart the server
> or just the service; those client have hung badly at times. I think
> this problem is (or has been) fixed... haven't tested it in a while!
>
> cheers,
>
> Ben
>
>
> On Thu, 2002-10-24 at 20:42, Bob Crandell wrote:
> > In that case, Samba would be the easiest to get your files from Windows. Then you
> > can use NFS to allow your Linux boxes to share files.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Eug-LUG mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
_______________________________________________
Eug-LUG mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
