Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
On 12 August 2005 02:40, Ow Mun Heng wrote: On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 20:40 +0100, Uwe Thiem wrote: Case 5: I log into B and sftp into A. It sits there for about 10 seconds before presenting me with a password prompt. After, I get transfer rates close to case 2 and case 3, just the other way round. The issues with the slow logon is most likely due to some DNS lookups or something. I've had this before, (can't remember what happened but managed to fix it). I believe your SSH sessions will also be hung for 10 secs? Yup, the delay occurs with both ssh and sftp. Has nothing to do with DNS. It also occurs when using IP addresses. Uwe -- 95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software developers. - Linus Torvalds http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
On 12 August 2005 04:13, Bob Sanders wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 Uwe Thiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) The long timeout before password is probably DNS not working the port properly. Just a guess. Nope. Same behaviour when using IP addresses. Have you tried - scp, in both directions? Yes, did it now. Surprisingly it transfers data at 2xB/s both ways. Quite different from sftp. And which nfs? V3, V4? I suggest V4, if not. V3 is what nfsstat says. Hmm. I've enabled both, V3 and V4, server- and client-side. How do I force it to use V4? Have you run top and netstat -rn on both boxes to see what they think the routing is? Routes are alright. Both boxes have a route to the class C network (192.168.254.0/24) they are using. Uwe -- 95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software developers. - Linus Torvalds http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
Uwe Thiem wrote: On 12 August 2005 04:13, Bob Sanders wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 Uwe Thiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) It would probably cost 10 times the price of the lager for shipping. Maybe you should make it a case? I heard that Namibia Breweries is due to stop making Heineken and it's going to SAB? :-) The long timeout before password is probably DNS not working the port properly. Just a guess. Nope. Same behaviour when using IP addresses. Have you tried - scp, in both directions? Yes, did it now. Surprisingly it transfers data at 2xB/s both ways. Quite different from sftp. And which nfs? V3, V4? I suggest V4, if not. V3 is what nfsstat says. Hmm. I've enabled both, V3 and V4, server- and client-side. How do I force it to use V4? Have you run top and netstat -rn on both boxes to see what they think the routing is? Routes are alright. Both boxes have a route to the class C network (192.168.254.0/24) they are using. Uwe Email Disclaimer http://www.aplitec.co.za/emaildisclaimer.htm -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[completely OT]Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
On 12 August 2005 12:23, Mark Humphrey wrote: Uwe Thiem wrote: On 12 August 2005 04:13, Bob Sanders wrote: On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 Uwe Thiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) It would probably cost 10 times the price of the lager for shipping. Maybe you should make it a case? I heard that Namibia Breweries is due to stop making Heineken and it's going to SAB? :-) Sure shipping would cost more than the lager. But what the heck! No way Namibia Breweries is going to SAB SAB might be the second largest brewery in the world but they still make junk beer. Even Pilsner Urquell has become less good since SAB bought them. As for Heineken, I don't know whether they are going to stop making it, and I don't care. It isn't really good beer. BTW, there is a funny little story about it. When Namibia Breweries started to make Heineken, it turned out better than the original. So the good boys from Heineken got their collective butts over to Namibia to study the brewing process here. Afterwards, they changed their brewing back home according to what they learnt here. :-) Uwe -- 95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software developers. - Linus Torvalds http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
Hi folks, this message is rather lengthy. If you don't feel like reading all of it please don't bother to answer. You'll need the whole lot to get the picture. ;-) I have run into a weird network problem with 1Gb NICs. It involves these two boxes: Box A P4 2.8Ghz HT 512GB ram Tigon Gb NIC (module tg3) IDE drives Box B Xeon 2.6Ghz HT 512GB ram Intel Pro/1000 Gb NIC (module e1000) SCSI RAID5 The two of them are connected by a cross-over cable. So nothing else is on that network, kinda peer-to-peer connection. Both boxes are running *exactly* the same gentoo software. I emerged it on one box, tarred it up, copied it over to the other one and made the config changes like IP addresses, names and such. Kernel is 2.6.12-gentoo-r6. Of course, box B loads the SCSI modules. All file transfers I am talking about are done with a file all.tar.bz2 of the size of 1088MB. Both boxes are idle otherwise. Neither box runs services like FTP or HTTP. So I have to resort to other protocols to transfer files. Both do run NFS and SSH. Case 1: I log into A and NFS mount B's /tmp on A's /mnt/floppy and cd to /tmp. cp /mnt/floppy/all.tar.bz2 . (receiving on A) as well as cp all.tar.bz2 /mnt/floppy (sending from A) result in a sustained transfer rate of 2xMB/s. That's to be expected because it involves an IDE drive on A, and that's about the limit of current IDE drives (though 1Gb NICs can transfer data at about 4 to 5 times that rate). It also confirms that both Gb NICs are performing though it doesn't confirm they are getting near their theoretical limits (the latter unimportant in this case). Case 2: I log into A and sftp into B. get all.tar.bz2 (receiving on A) transfers the file at 2xMB/s, same as in case 1. CPU utilisation is up to 40-50% due to encryption. Still, encryption does not slow down the transfer rate by any significant amount. This can be expected with the CPUs involved. Case 3: I log into A and sftp into B. put all.tar.bz2 (sending from A) transfers the file at 3.7MB/s! This is far slower than on a 100baseT network where I get transfer rates of about 10MB/s with the network being the bottleneck rather than the harddisks. CPU utilisation is down to about 10%, indicating that something else than encryption is throttling the transfer. This is odd! Case 4: I log into B and try to NFS mount A's /tmp to B's /mnt/floppy. It returns with an RPC timeout. So I can't do the cp test from B. Case 5: I log into B and sftp into A. It sits there for about 10 seconds before presenting me with a password prompt. After, I get transfer rates close to case 2 and case 3, just the other way round. I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) Uwe -- 95% of all programmers rate themselves among the top 5% of all software developers. - Linus Torvalds http://www.uwix.iway.na (last updated: 20.06.2004) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 20:40 +0100, Uwe Thiem wrote: Case 5: I log into B and sftp into A. It sits there for about 10 seconds before presenting me with a password prompt. After, I get transfer rates close to case 2 and case 3, just the other way round. The issues with the slow logon is most likely due to some DNS lookups or something. I've had this before, (can't remember what happened but managed to fix it). I believe your SSH sessions will also be hung for 10 secs? -- Ow Mun Heng Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM 98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! Neuromancer 09:39:26 up 10:55, 7 users, load average: 0.55, 0.42, 0.72 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
Right - I saw this a few weeks ago when I took a new Myth frontend machine to my dad's house and had my DNS server as the top server in /etc/resolv.conf instead of the ones he should use on his network. On 8/11/05, Ow Mun Heng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 20:40 +0100, Uwe Thiem wrote: Case 5: I log into B and sftp into A. It sits there for about 10 seconds before presenting me with a password prompt. After, I get transfer rates close to case 2 and case 3, just the other way round. The issues with the slow logon is most likely due to some DNS lookups or something. I've had this before, (can't remember what happened but managed to fix it). I believe your SSH sessions will also be hung for 10 secs? -- Ow Mun Heng Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM 98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! Neuromancer 09:39:26 up 10:55, 7 users, load average: 0.55, 0.42, 0.72 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] weird 1000baseT problem
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:40:12 +0100 Uwe Thiem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am puzzled. First I thought that the Gb NIC on box A is somehow kaput but case 1 surely shows it is performing. What the heck is going on here? I would be deeply indebted to any person on this list that could shed some light on this. Any hint what to investigate would be highly appreciated. Really. This has troubled me for the last three days and I would go as far as ship you a Windhoek Lager. ;-) The long timeout before password is probably DNS not working the port properly. Just a guess. Have you tried - scp, in both directions? And which nfs? V3, V4? I suggest V4, if not. Have you run top and netstat -rn on both boxes to see what they think the routing is? Bob - -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
