Re: 100Mbit network performance - again (Andrew P.)
mistakes must be on the Windows side, but that's not an excuse for FreeBSD/Linux to not be at least 99%-Windows-networking-compatible. Tridge Quote: Samba is Bug for Bug compatible with Windows. (Until M$ changes something ie tries to fix its own bugs and makes some others OR are new 'features' introduced deliberately ???) Any advice on tuning up TCP / IDE Disk IO / Samba on 5.4 would be interesting !!! Thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/26/05, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. How is it possible to get 11-12Mbytes/s from 10Base2? Redo your math ( 2(20) * 10 / 8 ) and you get an absolute of 1.31MB/s for 10Mbit Ethernet. BUT this number has no meaning in the real world! The theoretical maximum data throughput for a 10Mbps Ethernet system is 9.744MB/s using 1518 byte frames. The last time I checked Microsoft could only break anti-trust laws, not physics. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again (Andrew P.)
On 7/27/05, Graham Bentley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: mistakes must be on the Windows side, but that's not an excuse for FreeBSD/Linux to not be at least 99%-Windows-networking-compatible. Tridge Quote: Samba is Bug for Bug compatible with Windows. (Until M$ changes something ie tries to fix its own bugs and makes some others OR are new 'features' introduced deliberately ???) Any advice on tuning up TCP / IDE Disk IO / Samba on 5.4 would be interesting !!! I wish you could run Netware on top of BSD... I think Novell made a very smart move adopting Linux into it's portfolio. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/26/05, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. How is it possible to get 11-12Mbytes/s from 10Base2? Redo your math ( 2(20) * 10 / 8 ) and you get an absolute of 1.31MB/s for 10Mbit Ethernet. BUT this number has no meaning in the real world! The theoretical maximum data throughput for a 10Mbps Ethernet system is 9.744MB/s using 1518 byte frames. The last time I checked Microsoft could only break anti-trust laws, not physics. hahaha... that should have been 974KB/s, even I fsck up, though I'm under the influence of butt kickin sleep meds ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:48, Andrew P. wrote: On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:00, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. Here is the ifconfig output from a machine that has one nic set at 10Mbit/half duplex and one at 100Mbit full duplex. how does it compare with your system? xl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe70:4fb0%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 71.102.0.97 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 71.102.0.255 ether 00:10:4b:70:4f:b0 media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active xl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe0a:7cbc%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 ether 00:10:4b:0a:7c:bc media: Ethernet 100baseTX full-duplex status: active Well, if that really matters to you: (freebsd 5.4) vr0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::20f:3dff:feca:c494%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 192.168.17.217 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:0f:3d:ca:c4:94 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU inet 192.168.17.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:40:f4:8d:a7:f8 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active Same netmask for two different segments of the same class C network? How's it work with one segment disconnected? -Mike rl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:40:f4:8d:9c:af media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active (fedora core 4) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:81:2F:04:3E inet addr:193.233.5.13 Bcast:193.233.5.63 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:81ff:fe2f:43e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:123946466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:176380358 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:42267471987 (39.3 GiB) TX bytes:197116022761 (183.5 GiB) Interrupt:177 Andrew P. Actually vr0 and rl0 are on different boxes :) Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Nikolas Britton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/26/05, Andrew P. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. How is it possible to get 11-12Mbytes/s from 10Base2? Redo your math ( 2(20) * 10 / 8 ) and you get an absolute of 1.31MB/s for 10Mbit Ethernet. BUT this number has no meaning in the real world! The theoretical maximum data throughput for a 10Mbps Ethernet system is 9.744MB/s using 1518 byte frames. The last time I checked Microsoft could only break anti-trust laws, not physics. Oh, sorry. You probably can't get 100Mbit over BNC. I meant two combo FastEthernet cards connected via UTP. The question was how can you reach Windows-to-Windows performance between Windows and FreeBSD. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Eric Schuele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andrew P. wrote: On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:00, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, FWIW... I recently had reason to investigate a network's performance. I was able to consistently get ~95% throughput from windows machines to FreeBSD boxes. I was using iperf (there is a WinX version of iperf as well) and chargen for testing. All PCs were old, and generally using cheap onboard NICs Might try tools specifically geared towards throughput testing. Various protocols have varying amounts of overhead. Tools with throughput testing in mind obviously have overhead minimized. Just my .02 cents. Well, I never doubted that some tests can show you efficient bandwidth usage. But how can we reach it in practice? different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. Here is the ifconfig output from a machine that has one nic set at 10Mbit/half duplex and one at 100Mbit full duplex. how does it compare with your system? xl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe70:4fb0%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 71.102.0.97 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 71.102.0.255 ether 00:10:4b:70:4f:b0 media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) .02 more cents. Sometimes autoselect can work against you. Might try tying it down. I have some problems with Autoselect on Cisco boxes in Gigabit environments, but never with FreeBSD on 100Mbit. status: active xl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe0a:7cbc%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 ether 00:10:4b:0a:7c:bc media: Ethernet 100baseTX full-duplex status: active Well, if that really matters to you: (freebsd 5.4) vr0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::20f:3dff:feca:c494%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 192.168.17.217 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:0f:3d:ca:c4:94 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU inet 192.168.17.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:40:f4:8d:a7:f8 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:40:f4:8d:9c:af media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active (fedora core 4) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:81:2F:04:3E inet addr:193.233.5.13 Bcast:193.233.5.63 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:81ff:fe2f:43e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:123946466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:176380358 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:42267471987 (39.3 GiB) TX bytes:197116022761 (183.5 GiB) Interrupt:177 Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Eric Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Hello, On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:13:50AM +0400 or thereabouts, Andrew P. wrote: Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. If I take that your NE2000 $10 NIC's is what you call 100Mbit hardware, then.. would you mind if I ask: what do you expect more from such $10-harware other than just to flicker and to eat electric current? Use *real* 100Mbit hardware please :). BTW I have same performance with my sis900/rl8139 NIC's. cheers, Martin -- martin hudec * 421 907 303 393 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.aeternal.net Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy pgp9pBQSgPbRe.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
I have diff experience, I get around 7500kB/sec max windows to windows using realtek, and freebsd can get the same but uses less cpu in doing so, I put it down to realtek just been poor and the FreeBSD and windows drivers not been great, I have seen both windows and FreeBSD handle higher transfer rates with better quality network cards, if performance is essential for your network then invest in good hardware. Chris On 27/07/05, martin hudec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:13:50AM +0400 or thereabouts, Andrew P. wrote: Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. If I take that your NE2000 $10 NIC's is what you call 100Mbit hardware, then.. would you mind if I ask: what do you expect more from such $10-harware other than just to flicker and to eat electric current? Use *real* 100Mbit hardware please :). BTW I have same performance with my sis900/rl8139 NIC's. cheers, Martin -- martin hudec * 421 907 303 393 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.aeternal.net Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Chris wrote: I have diff experience, I get around 7500kB/sec max windows to windows using realtek, and freebsd can get the same but uses less cpu in doing so, I put it down to realtek just been poor and the FreeBSD and windows drivers not been great, I have seen both windows and FreeBSD handle higher transfer rates with better quality network cards, if performance is essential for your network then invest in good hardware. Chris On 27/07/05, martin hudec [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:13:50AM +0400 or thereabouts, Andrew P. wrote: Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. If I take that your NE2000 $10 NIC's is what you call 100Mbit hardware, then.. would you mind if I ask: what do you expect more from such $10-harware other than just to flicker and to eat electric current? Use *real* 100Mbit hardware please :) . BTW I have same performance with my sis900/rl8139 NIC's. cheers, Martin -- martin hudec * 421 907 303 393 * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.aeternal.net Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Haha... Samba's a given. It's always slow as hell. HTTP... hmmm. What server are you serving HTTP traffic with and what are the stats of the server hardware/load and also which client are you using to connect to the server? But the real question is what sort of CPU speed/RAM/HD speeds and what version(s) of each OS are using in your machines? Performance can vary greatly with these factors. If you don't like Samba, try SFU's NFS thanks to MS http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/downloads/default.mspx. One of the only decent things that MS has come out with ever. When communicating with 2 machines (Windows client, FreeBSD/Linux server) I had very little lag and things got close to the full 10Mb/s I think (didn't empirically measure the value). You can also use Cygwin based NFS if you only want a client and not a server. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
100Mbit network performance - again
Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
I get 60+Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Mac via NFS. I get 40-60Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Windows 2K box via Samba. Good NICs help. Intel 10/100 Pro. Google for Samba tuning also. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. Thanks for your 2 cents anyway, Andrew P. On 7/27/05, Sean Hafeez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get 60+Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Mac via NFS. I get 40-60Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Windows 2K box via Samba. Good NICs help. Intel 10/100 Pro. Google for Samba tuning also. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Let me fix my typo here. I get 60+Mbits out of 100Mbits on a 10/100 network. The Max SUSTAINED thru-put you will ever see will be around 70Mbits. There is an overhead that means that you will only see .7 of the theoretical. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. Thanks for your 2 cents anyway, Andrew P. On 7/27/05, Sean Hafeez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get 60+Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Mac via NFS. I get 40-60Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Windows 2K box via Samba. Good NICs help. Intel 10/100 Pro. Google for Samba tuning also. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the Windows TCP/IP window buffers are not optimized the same way as FBSD or Linux. Casey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
You might be right in a sense, but like I said: Windows-to-Windows file transfers can easily be sustained at 11-12Mbytes/s. That's up to over 90% of 100Mbit bandwidth. In fact, if you review the theoretical part of Ethernet and TCP/IP, you'd find that it's very possible. On 7/27/05, Sean Hafeez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let me fix my typo here. I get 60+Mbits out of 100Mbits on a 10/100 network. The Max SUSTAINED thru-put you will ever see will be around 70Mbits. There is an overhead that means that you will only see .7 of the theoretical. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. Thanks for your 2 cents anyway, Andrew P. On 7/27/05, Sean Hafeez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I get 60+Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Mac via NFS. I get 40-60Mbytes between my FreeBSD 5.4 and Windows 2K box via Samba. Good NICs help. Intel 10/100 Pro. Google for Samba tuning also. -Sean On Jul 26, 2005, at 4:00 PM, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Casey Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the Windows TCP/IP window buffers are not optimized the same way as FBSD or Linux. Casey No doubt about that. Any thoughts about how to make them communicate more effectively? Personally, I don't think it's just window buffers. I think the whole darn TCP/IP stack misconfiguration plus maybe not perfect NIC drivers are the reason for underperformance. I know that most of the real mistakes must be on the Windows side, but that's not an excuse for FreeBSD/Linux to not be at least 99%-Windows-networking-compatible. Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:00, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. Here is the ifconfig output from a machine that has one nic set at 10Mbit/half duplex and one at 100Mbit full duplex. how does it compare with your system? xl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe70:4fb0%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 71.102.0.97 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 71.102.0.255 ether 00:10:4b:70:4f:b0 media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) status: active xl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe0a:7cbc%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 ether 00:10:4b:0a:7c:bc media: Ethernet 100baseTX full-duplex status: active Well, if that really matters to you: (freebsd 5.4) vr0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::20f:3dff:feca:c494%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 192.168.17.217 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:0f:3d:ca:c4:94 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU inet 192.168.17.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:40:f4:8d:a7:f8 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:40:f4:8d:9c:af media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active (fedora core 4) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:81:2F:04:3E inet addr:193.233.5.13 Bcast:193.233.5.63 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:81ff:fe2f:43e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:123946466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:176380358 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:42267471987 (39.3 GiB) TX bytes:197116022761 (183.5 GiB) Interrupt:177 Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Andrew P. wrote: On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:00, Andrew P. wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, FWIW... I recently had reason to investigate a network's performance. I was able to consistently get ~95% throughput from windows machines to FreeBSD boxes. I was using iperf (there is a WinX version of iperf as well) and chargen for testing. All PCs were old, and generally using cheap onboard NICs Might try tools specifically geared towards throughput testing. Various protocols have varying amounts of overhead. Tools with throughput testing in mind obviously have overhead minimized. Just my .02 cents. different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. Here is the ifconfig output from a machine that has one nic set at 10Mbit/half duplex and one at 100Mbit full duplex. how does it compare with your system? xl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe70:4fb0%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 71.102.0.97 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 71.102.0.255 ether 00:10:4b:70:4f:b0 media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) .02 more cents. Sometimes autoselect can work against you. Might try tying it down. status: active xl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=1RXCSUM inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe0a:7cbc%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 ether 00:10:4b:0a:7c:bc media: Ethernet 100baseTX full-duplex status: active Well, if that really matters to you: (freebsd 5.4) vr0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 inet6 fe80::20f:3dff:feca:c494%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 inet 192.168.17.217 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:0f:3d:ca:c4:94 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl0: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU inet 192.168.17.1 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 ether 00:40:f4:8d:a7:f8 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active rl1: flags=8843UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST mtu 1500 options=8VLAN_MTU ether 00:40:f4:8d:9c:af media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex) status: active (fedora core 4) eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:81:2F:04:3E inet addr:193.233.5.13 Bcast:193.233.5.63 Mask:255.255.255.192 inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:81ff:fe2f:43e/64 Scope:Link UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:123946466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:176380358 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 RX bytes:42267471987 (39.3 GiB) TX bytes:197116022761 (183.5 GiB) Interrupt:177 Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Regards, Eric ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: 100Mbit network performance - again
Andrew P. wrote: On 7/27/05, Casey Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello all! I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows 2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, but is there something wrong? I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. Wazzup?.. Thanks, Andrew P. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Keep in mind that the Windows TCP/IP window buffers are not optimized the same way as FBSD or Linux. Casey No doubt about that. Any thoughts about how to make them communicate more effectively? Personally, I don't think it's just window buffers. I think the whole darn TCP/IP stack misconfiguration plus maybe not perfect NIC drivers are the reason for underperformance. I know that most of the real mistakes must be on the Windows side, but that's not an excuse for FreeBSD/Linux to not be at least 99%-Windows-networking-compatible. Andrew P. Your best would be google for that. Its been so long ago, that I don't remember anything useful. Sorry, Casey ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
