Since you CC'd yourself on your own mail, I'm assuming you want CC's on this. If you really do, you should probably add a Mail-Followup-To header.
It'd be nice if you'd include your name in your From, so we have something other than "jpiszcz" to refer to you as, by the way. :) On Thu, Aug 01, 2002 at 12:54:06PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Topic: Nasty ext2fs bug. > Summary: When using lftp with the pget -n option for large files, once the > file is complete the problem begins. If you try to copy, ftp, or > pretty much anything that involves reading the file, it is "stuck" > at a rate of 800KB/s to 1600KB/s. > Problem: The pget -n feature of lftp is very nice if you want to maximize > your download bandwidth, however, if getting a large file, such > as the one I am getting in the example, once the file is successfully > retrived, transferring it to another HDD or FTPing it to another > computer is very slow (800KB-1600KB/s). I wonder if making lftp delay writes until it has a given amount of data would help. (This wouldn't be very good for link->link transfers, and might slow down link->drive transfers if it was set too high--a normal block size for writing to disk is typically 4k--but in this case it might be interesting to see if 128k helps.) That aside, ext2 shouldn't be fragmenting badly, even if we *are* doing that. It's designed to avoid that. However, writing to a file this way may be more than it can handle. > a) [war@p300 x]$ /usr/bin/time cp 1GB /x2 > 0.41user 29.79system 1:33.19elapsed 32%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata > 0maxresident)k > 0inputs+0outputs (97major+14minor)pagefaults 0swaps > > b) ftp> get 1GB > 1073741824 bytes received in 98.4 secs (1.1e+04 Kbytes/sec) You didn't include a comparison: FTPing the file normally to this host and copying it out, to show that it's actually substantially faster when you don't use pget. -- Glenn Maynard
