Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
frequency cables and gotten any better results? And generally for CAT5
cable, is
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
:affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
:over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
:frequency cables and gotten any
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
:can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
:room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
:you need it then pushing it to
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
: Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
:can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
:room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
:you need it then pushing
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
:wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
:guage.
For twisted pair, Less power == less crosstalk. Plus the higher
bandwidth transceivers
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
At 08:08 PM 16/07/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
:wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
:guage.
For
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
and other factors do affect the performance. I guess a good way to test
the cable is with FreeBSD since it's the only real OS I've seen that can
do like real world speeds.
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean Mega as in 100. 100Mbps Ethernet should be equal to
about 12500Kbytes/sec which is equal to 12.5Mbytes/sec. 94.93Megabits/sec
doesn't equal to 100Megabits/sec.
12.5 Mbytes/sec on the wire *is* 94.93 Megabits/sec application
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
There again, any network installer worth their salt will test the cable
when
in-situ, after the 'dust' has settled...
Testing after the dust has settled and while it is in use is
different since conditions do change. The testers only tests
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a "network only" test - it can source
or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended to run the tests for 30 seconds
to one minute.
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: 2.6 MB/sec is what I would expect if you were running the test
: over an ssh link on a fast cpu - the encryption eats a lot of cpu. But
: a normal rcp or ftp or data transfer can easily do 9-10 MBytes/sec.
:
: That was actually
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Ah, you have a point there. The problem is we have so many wires,
we don't know which port goes to what on the Catalyst so we had it on
autodetect and FreeBSD does boot up with fxp0 showing 100Mbps Full
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
the actual device connected to it...
FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0090.abea.3bc1 (bia
0090.abea.3bc1)
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please read the documentation.
This is hard since the actual machines and switches are almost
6000 miles away from me and the last time I checked, it didn't come with
manuals. I know my way around the Cisco routers but the switches is
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
I guess I forgot about the overhead. I've tested between two
FreeBSD machines using Intel Pro100+ NIC cards connected to a Cisco 2924XL
Switch Full Duplex and never seen anything close to the speeds.
using netperfv2pl3 and
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
Hi ...
We have previously done many network performance tests for our
products running on FreeBSD ...
We have found that when ever there is disk accessing involved, it
is not a good idea to look at the transfer figures. We did tests
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
Hi ..
1. If you want to test the network speed ... use ttcp or something
that generates the data and doesn't read it from disk.
ttcp works. The only problem is when I tried it in both
directions, at once. the total becomes
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
BITCHMODE
By reading the man page?
The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp...
I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque.
I know.
There is no ttcp binary
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
the actual device connected to it...
You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp - port
-
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp - port
- host correlations? Good luck... :)
Even if it did show the arp of the actual host, it's
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
:selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
:any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror
:data to a different port.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then either there is a hub between your net and the switch, or the switch
is badly misconfigured.
Well, the switch came out of the box and just had the default
setup It just has a IP assigned to it... And there is no hub between
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I was wondering what is the
fastest Celeron chip that can be overclocked to run at
motherboards, we have found the ASUS
P2B (now the P2B-F) to be rock solid for Pentium II usage.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst
2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or
just layer 2?
Cisco, yes... HP, no clue (perhaps you could check
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, [KOI8-R] óÅÒÇÅÊ ïÓÏËÉÎ wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
I've had great results with the Tyan 1836DLUAN/Thunder 100's.
I've got several boxes with 1GB of RAM and dual 450's humming along. For
comparison one system with less memory and a
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
Vincent Poy wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium
Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm
supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone
machine?
Cheers,
Vince - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Vice President __
Unix Networking Operations - FreeBSD-Real Unix for Free / / / / | /
On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Vincent Poy writes:
Speaking about vmware, how much of the performance is a vm
supposed to give compared to the actual processor in a stand-alone
machine?
It depends on what metric one uses to measure performance. Boots
(loading kernel
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Walter Hop wrote:
[in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 25-04-2001]
Interesting. What happens if it's like the reverse where one runs
FreeBSD under vmware from Windows2000? Since 5-10% seems to be really
slow.
I always try out new applications in a virtual
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
Walter Hop writes:
[in reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED], 25-04-2001]
Interesting. What happens if it's like the reverse where one runs
FreeBSD under vmware from Windows2000? Since 5-10% seems to be really
slow.
I always try
On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Søren Schmidt wrote:
It seems Vincent Poy wrote:
root@pele [9:09am][/usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd] make
cc -O -pipe -c /usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd/burncd.c
/usr/src/usr.sbin/burncd/burncd.c:65: warning: `struct cdr_cue_entry'
declared inside parameter list
/usr/src
Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
frequency cables and gotten any better results? And generally for CAT5
cable, is
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Speaking about ethernet performance, doesn't the quality of cable
:affect it too? I noticed that there are cables that are 350Mhz and higher
:over the standard CAT5 100Mhz cables. Has anyone used the higher
:frequency cables and gotten any
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
:can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
:room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
:you need it then pushing it to
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Louis A. Mamakos wrote:
: Good point but I think it's like how much of 100Mhz a 100BaseTX
:can push. If it pushes 100%, then it might be wise to have a little more
:room for overhead. Kinda like a car, better to have reserve power when
:you need it then pushing it
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
:wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
:guage.
For twisted pair, Less power == less crosstalk. Plus the higher
bandwidth transceivers
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
At 08:08 PM 16/07/99 -0700, you wrote:
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: I know, I'm just wondering how did they get more frequency out of
:wire of the same size. I can understand it if the wire was a larger
:guage.
For twisted
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Tim Baird wrote:
Thanks for the article and for the brief. I just have a little
comment on shielded versus unshielded for both analog and digital audio
cables, not sure if this applies to data cable but digital audio is data:
Cables are of the nude (unshielded)
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I am benefiting from it for sure. I guess what I was asking
originally was if the higher frequency rated cables will give it more
headroom since the 100BaseTX ethernet does push CAT5 to the limit.
100BaseTX is specified to run on Cat5
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Karl Pielorz wrote:
Vincent Poy wrote:
Note also that FreeBSD can easily saturate 100 Mbps Ethernet.
It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
and other factors do affect the performance. I guess a good way to test
the cable
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
It meets the spec when shipped but the bends, curves, temperature
and other factors do affect the performance. I guess a good way to test
the cable is with FreeBSD since it's the only real OS I've seen that can
do like real world speeds.
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I mean Mega as in 100. 100Mbps Ethernet should be equal to
about 12500Kbytes/sec which is equal to 12.5Mbytes/sec. 94.93Megabits/sec
doesn't equal to 100Megabits/sec.
12.5 Mbytes/sec on the wire *is* 94.93 Megabits/sec application to
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
need?
As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a network only test - it can source
or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
problems (disk bandwidth
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
There again, any network installer worth their salt will test the cable
when
in-situ, after the 'dust' has settled...
Testing after the dust has settled and while it is in use is
different since conditions do change. The testers only tests for
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a network only test - it can source
or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended to run the tests for 30 seconds
to one minute.
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: Hmmm, how did you do the measurement and how big of a file does it
:need?
:
: With a 122MByte file, it only does 2644Kbytes/sec. This is
:between two Pentium II 450 machines with Intel Pro100+ NICs.
2.6 MB/sec is what I would
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
As I said, I used ttcp. ttcp is a network only test - it can source
or sink traffic itself. This is nice because you avoid other sources of
problems (disk bandwidth etc). I tended to run the tests for 30 seconds
to one minute.
Oops
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: 2.6 MB/sec is what I would expect if you were running the test
: over an ssh link on a fast cpu - the encryption eats a lot of cpu. But
: a normal rcp or ftp or data transfer can easily do 9-10 MBytes/sec.
:
: That was actually
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Leif Neland wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Ah, you have a point there. The problem is we have so many wires,
we don't know which port goes to what on the Catalyst so we had it on
autodetect and FreeBSD does boot up with fxp0 showing 100Mbps Full
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
the actual device connected to it...
FastEthernet0/1 is up, line protocol is up
Hardware is Fast Ethernet, address is 0090.abea.3bc1 (bia
0090.abea.3bc1)
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Please read the documentation.
This is hard since the actual machines and switches are almost
6000 miles away from me and the last time I checked, it didn't come with
manuals. I know my way around the Cisco routers but the switches is
On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Jonathan M. Bresler wrote:
I guess I forgot about the overhead. I've tested between two
FreeBSD machines using Intel Pro100+ NIC cards connected to a Cisco 2924XL
Switch Full Duplex and never seen anything close to the speeds.
using netperfv2pl3 and
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
Hi ...
We have previously done many network performance tests for our
products running on FreeBSD ...
We have found that when ever there is disk accessing involved, it
is not a good idea to look at the transfer figures. We did tests
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Reinier Bezuidenhout wrote:
Hi ..
1. If you want to test the network speed ... use ttcp or something
that generates the data and doesn't read it from disk.
ttcp works. The only problem is when I tried it in both
directions, at once. the total becomes
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
On Sat, 17 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
BITCHMODE
By reading the man page?
The manpage doesn't really say anything about how to use ttcp...
I don't think manpage useage is -hackers-esque.
I know.
There is no ttcp binary anywhere
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
I'm not sure if it shows the mac address of the cisco's port or
the actual device connected to it...
You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp - port
- host
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
You see the MAC of the switch's port. It's been too long since I've
played on a Catalyst... but what does 'sh arp' display? Any arp - port
- host correlations? Good luck... :)
Even if it did show the arp of the actual host, it's
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
No idea but it seems like the people who sold the Cisco switches
atleast claimed that each port is supposed to be secure to prevent packet
sniffing by people on the other ports...
Perhaps they were touting
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
:selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
:any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror
:data to a different port.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
No idea, all I know is that people on our LAN without changing MAC
addresses can see all traffic going on the LAN. Even from our FreeBSD box
with trafshow, we can see traffic that is destined for the global net from
the modem dialups.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999 sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
Then either there is a hub between your net and the switch, or the switch
is badly misconfigured.
Well, the switch came out of the box and just had the default
setup It just has a IP assigned to it... And there is no hub between
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Wes Peters wrote:
Matthew Dillon wrote:
:Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but since switches forward packets
:selectively per port, I would think it would be hard to sniff packets on
:any port, w/o administrative access to the switch to tell it to mirror
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I was wondering what is the
fastest Celeron chip that can be overclocked to run at
motherboards, we have found the ASUS
P2B (now the P2B-F) to be rock solid for Pentium II usage.
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Modred wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Speaking about Layer 2 and layer 3. Does the Cisco Catalyst
2924XL and the HP ProCurve 2424M and 4000M switches fall under Layer 3 or
just layer 2?
Cisco, yes... HP, no clue (perhaps you could check
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, [KOI8-R] ?? ?? wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium, it was the ASUS board but for the
PII/PIII, is the Abit the better board? Also, I
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
I've had great results with the Tyan 1836DLUAN/Thunder 100's.
I've got several boxes with 1GB of RAM and dual 450's humming along. For
comparison one system with less memory and a
On Sat, 24 Jul 1999, Mike Hoskins wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 1999, Daniel C. Sobral wrote:
Not really. The customer whose box this is chose this much memory
because his previous server was a 256MB UltraSparc that was swamped all
the
time with a load of 6 to 7.
Alas, since
On Sun, 25 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
Vincent Poy wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 1999, Doug wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Vincent Poy wrote:
Greetings everyone,
What are the current good motherboards for FreeBSD for the pentium
II and III? I know on the Pentium
74 matches
Mail list logo
