I would guess the gigabit switch vs my cheapo 100Mb/s switch would make that sort of difference. You have to do the test with the same hardware, same server, same switches otherwise you have no relative comparision that's valid. The server could make a huge difference also. Ftp servers are kind of kludgy in the way that they decide on how to dispatch packets. I'd guess that if you put an intel card into the box you'd get similar relative differences in throughput.
Its not a good test anyway, but you have to simplify things for jerry and the gang. A better way to test is to generate a consistent load and look at CPU usage. The efficiency of the server, windowing, etc will all affect an FTP transfer too much to use it as a complete test. The seemingly tiny different between gigabit and 100Mb/s speeds could be the difference between the window staying open or the process going to sleep. . --- "Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2006, at 8:42 AM, Danial Thom wrote: > > > > How is informing someone that they're wasting > > their money on a MB a waste of time? I'm sure > > you've wasted thousands of your employers > dollars > > with your ignorant recommendations, Jerry. I > can > > get hours of entertainment just googling you. > > > > Ok, here's a test to illustrate my point. I > have > > a server with a big file (352MB). 2 client > > machines running the same version of Freebsd: > > > > 1) AMD 1.8Ghz Opteron - onboard bge > controller: > > > > Ftp results: 4MB/s > > You have something wrong then. I have 2 such > machines, both with > the bge on a simple 32bit/33mhz pci bus, not on > a 64 bit or a faster > pci-x bus (Tyan S2850 boards in both, both with > Opteron 244 > (1.8ghz)). They are connected together with a > low level (ie, less > expensive) gigabit switch with standard MTU > size > > bge1: > flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > mtu 1500 > > options=1a<TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING> > inet 192.168.2.129 netmask 0xffffff00 > broadcast 192.168.2.255 > ether 00:e0:81:60:0c:f7 > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX > <full-duplex>) > status: active > > bge1: > flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> > mtu 1500 > > options=1a<TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING> > inet 192.168.2.110 netmask 0xffffff00 > broadcast 192.168.2.255 > inet6 fe80::2e0:81ff:fe64:ae9d%bge1 > prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 > inet 192.168.2.111 netmask 0xffffffff > broadcast 192.168.2.111 > inet 192.168.2.112 netmask 0xffffffff > broadcast 192.168.2.112 > inet 192.168.2.113 netmask 0xffffffff > broadcast 192.168.2.113 > inet 192.168.2.114 netmask 0xffffffff > broadcast 192.168.2.114 > ether 00:e0:81:64:ae:9d > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX > <full-duplex>) > status: active > > I ftp'ed a 3.9GB file between them using simple > ftp protocol. > > 4227530240 bytes sent in 05:06 (13.16 MB/s) > > Both have dual bge ethernet ports and this was > on the secondary port > on each, bge1. The primary port, bge0, on > each is hooked to a > 100BaseT switch and one server (origination) > was serving a bunch of > http/php on bge0 and the other was serving > clamav/spamassassin at the > same time. > > On the origination side I did top and the load > barely moved during > the ftp and system CPU time was a few % higher. > Not ideal but not a > deal breaker either. > > Chad > > > > > 2) Intel 2.0Ghz Celeron 845 Chipset, onboard > fxp > > controller: > > > > ftp results: 11MB/s > > > > I think we'll all agree that a 1.8Ghz opteron > is > > substantially faster (and more expensive) > then a > > 2.0Ghz Celeron? (or will Jerry ask me to > prove > > this also)? Its not rocket science. What good > is > > the extra horsepower of the cpu doing you if > > you're using a crap controller? Its mindless > > stupidity; which is about what you'd expect > from > > a sys admin, and not an engineer. The problem > > with this list is that its all sys admins, so > > learning from other idiots just causes you > to be > > just as stupid at your "teachers". > > > > DT > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > _______________________________________________ > > firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions- > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > --- > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC > Your Web App and Email hosting provider > chad at shire.net > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"