On 6/19/07, Adam Tauno Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > wow there is so much wrong with this test, > > First I find it hard to believe that you got up to 90% efficiency on a > > I noticed that too. > "NET --> .NET : 94 Mbit/s O.K." on a 100Mb/s network. > Bogus. No way. On a 100mbit switched network with half a dozen computers going through a single 100mbit link to a 48-port switch through another 100mbit link to another half dozen, here's a test from one machine to another: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ./ttcp -t -l1400 -n1048576 -s otherhost ttcp-t: nbuf=1048576, buflen=1400, port=2000 ttcp-t: socket ttcp-t: connect ttcp-t: 0.2user 2.1sys 2:05real 1% 0i+0d 0maxrss 0+1pf 15315+23csw ttcp-t: 1468006400 bytes processed ttcp-t: 2.41663 CPU sec = 593222 KB/cpu sec, 4.74578e+06 Kbits/cpu sec ttcp-t: 125.738 real sec = 11401.5 KB/real sec, 91212.1 Kbits/sec
91 is pretty close to 94. And other things are happening on this network, too. My home box pushes 11.9 MB/s = 95.2 megabits via iscsi, because it's an uncrowded network and a simple protocol. Sure, you don't get that via (say) SMB, but this test's not doing anything complicated. > > transfer at all, network over head should have knocked down your > > transfer more than that. What overhead? Please be more specific. _______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [email protected] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
