On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 05:09:47PM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
Michael Stone (12020-12-23):
No, network speeds are traditionally measured in bits because networks
transferred data in bits and telcos dealt with bits, and they sold and
billed bits. Computer internals were measured in bytes and
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 07:27:49PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
I thought Michael Stone had already covered that, by suggesting sparse
files (with which I'm not familiar)
A sparse file is one which has logically allocated empty (zero-filled)
blocks without allocating physical blocks. You can
On Mi, 23 dec 20, 19:27:49, David Wright wrote:
>
> I thought Michael Stone had already covered that, by suggesting sparse
> files (with which I'm not familiar) and /dev/null for conducting his
> encryption tests. I don't think any other posts had covered what's
> *between* the PCs, rather than
On Wed 23 Dec 2020 at 20:15:59 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 23 dec 20, 11:48:31, David Wright wrote:
> >
> > Some sort of rough calculation between the expected/nominal bit rate
> > and the actual data rate achieved is certainly useful, if only to
> > ascertain whether the link itself
On 12/23/20 2:55 AM, mick crane wrote:
hello,
I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
Transferring files between them, I forget which shows the transfer
speed per file, either scp or rsync the
On Mi, 23 dec 20, 11:48:31, David Wright wrote:
>
> Some sort of rough calculation between the expected/nominal bit rate
> and the actual data rate achieved is certainly useful, if only to
> ascertain whether the link itself is performing well. For that, you
> need to reduce the amount of
On Wed 23 Dec 2020 at 16:47:21 (+0200), Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> On Mi, 23 dec 20, 10:56:36, Nicolas George wrote:
> > Andy Smith (12020-12-23):
> > > "gigabyte" is not a network speed. You probably mean gigabit
> >
> > No, gigabit is 10³ bits, there is no "per second" involved either.
> >
> >
On Thu, Dec 24, 2020 at 12:13:19AM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
Getting back to the original question, rsync is inherently slower
because both ends do deep file inspection and handshaking to decide
what data transfer is required. scp is usually faster.
If you're rsyncing to a non-existent
On 23/12/20 11:51 pm, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:37:07PM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
I did some tests and found there was around a 10-20% difference in speed
between runs.
Yes, if you want more consistent numbers you'd need much larger test
file sizes; if the transfer
Michael Stone (12020-12-23):
> No, network speeds are traditionally measured in bits because networks
> transferred data in bits and telcos dealt with bits, and they sold and
> billed bits. Computer internals were measured in bytes and words because
> they transferred data in bytes and words. Some
Andrei POPESCU (12020-12-23):
> I took that to mean the theoretical maximum.
Not just that. Network protocols have many layers, and each layers adds
overhead. The rates are given at the lowest level, sometimes ATM,
therefore the usable rate at the application levels are significantly
lower.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 11:37:07PM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
I did some tests and found there was around a 10-20% difference in speed
between runs.
Yes, if you want more consistent numbers you'd need much larger test
file sizes; if the transfer is taking less than a second there's a lot
On 23/12/20 11:03 pm, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 09:56:01AM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
Having said that, scp and ssh are affected by the encryption
algorithm. The
fastest one at the moment is blowfish and it's possible to get up to
50 MB/s on
a gig lan.
That's pretty
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 10:56:36AM +0100, Nicolas George wrote:
Anyway, why would anybody honest want to use this kind of unit to
measure an actual speed is beyond me. The only point to speak in
kilo/mega/gigabits per second instead is to make the numbers seem larger
to attract clueless
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 09:56:01AM +0800, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
Having said that, scp and ssh are affected by the encryption algorithm. The
fastest one at the moment is blowfish and it's possible to get up to 50 MB/s on
a gig lan.
That's pretty ancient advice. The fastest on most modern x86
On Mi, 23 dec 20, 10:56:36, Nicolas George wrote:
> Andy Smith (12020-12-23):
> > "gigabyte" is not a network speed. You probably mean gigabit
>
> No, gigabit is 10³ bits, there is no "per second" involved either.
>
> Anyway, why would anybody honest want to use this kind of unit to
> measure an
Andy Smith wrote:
> Hi Mick,
>
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:55:58AM +, mick crane wrote:
>> I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
>> gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
>
> "gigabyte" is not a network speed. You probably mean
Andy Smith (12020-12-23):
> "gigabyte" is not a network speed. You probably mean gigabit
No, gigabit is 10³ bits, there is no "per second" involved either.
Anyway, why would anybody honest want to use this kind of unit to
measure an actual speed is beyond me. The only point to speak in
Hi Mick,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2020 at 12:55:58AM +, mick crane wrote:
> I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
> gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
"gigabyte" is not a network speed. You probably mean gigabit; that
is 10⁹ bits per
On 23/12/20 9:40 am, Jeremy Ardley wrote:
rsync is never particularly fast as there is a lot of handshaking and
file examination at each end prior to a transfer. I wouldn't be
surprised at 50 Mbps.
scp should be a lot faster as there is no handshaking other than
establishing the session;
On 23/12/20 8:55 am, mick crane wrote:
hello,
I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
Transferring files between them, I forget which shows the transfer
speed per file, either scp or rsync the
On 12/23/20 2:55 AM, mick crane wrote:
> hello,
> I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
> gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
> Transferring files between them, I forget which shows the transfer speed
> per file, either scp or rsync the
On 12/22/20 7:55 PM, mick crane wrote:
hello,
I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have gigabyte
network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
Transferring files between them, I forget which shows the transfer speed per
file, either scp or rsync the
hello,
I have a buster PC and a bullseye PC which are both supposed to have
gigabyte network cards connected via a little Gigabyte switch box.
Transferring files between them, I forget which shows the transfer speed
per file, either scp or rsync the maximum is 50 Mbs per file.
Would you expect
24 matches
Mail list logo
