Dan,
What difference would the cable length make our machines have about 25m to
the Switch and 25 m back again we have that all done for us by the
networking guys who do our building but as I understand we are on a VPN on a
big Cisco switch.
Would sharing a larger switch slow things down this much? I can't understand
it but something is seriously wrong and I don't think it is us. I have a
meeting with the guy who does all the networks for us tomorrow so I want to
be pretty sure it is not our fault so he can come up with some suggestions
as to why his network is so slow.
Could this be packet loss?? Are there any tests we can do to narrow down the
cause?
Thanks,
Brendan
Who is still waiting for a decent internet link stabbing his eyes out after
sharing 64k between 6 pc's for a month and doesn't need to worry about LAN
performance as well :)
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dan Tucny
Sent: 13 June 2001 16:59
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [OT ish] - Is it our LAN?
Me again, unfortunately, the previous one was slowed down due to disk
access, which while providing a more realistic figure as far as real world
performance, doesn't test the network connection fully...
Ran again once cached...
Document Path: /w2ksp2.exe
Document Length: 106278016 bytes
Concurrency Level: 1
Time taken for tests: 9.514 seconds
Complete requests: 1
Failed requests: 0
Total transferred: 106278379 bytes
HTML transferred: 106278016 bytes
Requests per second: 0.11
Transfer rate: 11170.74 kb/s received
Dan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Kennish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2001 2:49 PM
Subject: [OT ish] - Is it our LAN?
> Hello everyone.
>
> I have just been benchmarking my freeVSD test server to ensure that its
> up to scratch before we consider going live. Let's give you a bit of
> background (don't laugh at the system specs - we're buying a proper
> server soon!).
>
> Testing on 100mbps internal LAN.
> homer.office.fubra = AMD K6-2 500mhz with 128MB
> chiefwigham.office.fubra = AMD K6-2 500mhz with 64MB
> brendan.office.fubra = A virtual server (one of 3) on chiefwigham
>
> homer and chiefwigham basically sit on top of each other.
>
> I have been testing HTTP (with apache benchmark - ab executable) and
> FTP. Testing brendan/chiefwigham was done from homer..
>
> Tests were all done with an 11MB binary (directX 8 dx80eng.exe) Tests
> performed 3 times each. Results are means of the 3 tests...
>
> HTTP
> ====
> chiefwigham - 275 k/s
> brendan - 301 k/s (why this is faster than chiefwigham i don't
> know either!?)
>
> FTP (downloading)
> ===
> chiefwigham - 283 k/s
> brendan - 347 k/s
>
> FTP (uploads)
> ===
> chiefwigham - 192 k/s
> brendan - 180 k/s
>
>
> So, my question to you, is shouldn't these be a lot better on a 100mbps
> LAN? Is there anything that needs doing to increase these (other than
> CPU & RAM upgrades?)
>
> Thanks in advance for any responses,
>
>
> --
> Ben Kennish
>
> e: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> w: www.fubra.com
