Re: Low performance

2012-01-09 Thread Ing. Rainer Pietsch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Am 2012-01-09 12:03, schrieb Voelker, Bernhard: Tomasz wrote: I had network data transfer issue some time ago where transfers in one (A to B) direction were at full network speed.. Transfers in opposite directions (B to A) where going at 1 to 2 Kb

Re: Low performance

2012-01-09 Thread R. Pietsch
Am 2012-01-09 11:37, schrieb t...@vandradlabs.com.au: > I had network data transfer issue some time ago where transfers in one (A > to B) direction were at full network speed.. Transfers in opposite > directions (B to A) where going at 1 to 2 Kbit/sec. > > Eventually the cause was tracked down an

RE: Low performance

2012-01-09 Thread Voelker, Bernhard
Tomasz wrote: > I had network data transfer issue some time ago where transfers in one (A > to B) direction were at full network speed.. Transfers in opposite > directions (B to A) where going at 1 to 2 Kbit/sec. > > Eventually the cause was tracked down and it turned out to be a duplex > misma

Re: Low performance

2012-01-09 Thread tmc
I had network data transfer issue some time ago where transfers in one (A to B) direction were at full network speed.. Transfers in opposite directions (B to A) where going at 1 to 2 Kbit/sec. Eventually the cause was tracked down and it turned out to be a duplex mismatch caused by auto-negotiat

Re: Low performance

2012-01-09 Thread Hendrik Visage
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 10:32 PM, R. Pietsch wrote: > I try to capture such a rsync-stream with wireshark. Hmmm... receiving or transmitting side? I *assume* the transmitting side given the time difference between the packets and their ACKs. > the times are for example: > 10.510155 for the rsync-

Re: Low performance

2012-01-07 Thread R. Pietsch
Am 2012-01-07 01:58, schrieb Jesse Molina: > > Also try iperf instead of netperf. As a network admin/eng, I prefer > iperf for this kind of testing. Thanks for the info! I try to capture such a rsync-stream with wireshark. the times are for example: 10.510155 for the rsync-packet (Len=27512) 10.

Re: Low performance

2012-01-06 Thread Jesse Molina
Also try iperf instead of netperf. As a network admin/eng, I prefer iperf for this kind of testing. Rainer Pietsch wrote: Am 06.01.2012 04:27, schrieb Jason Haar: did you try scp (although that could be CPU-bound due to crypto), ftp or wget - ie see how other TCP apps do the same job? If

Re: Low performance

2012-01-06 Thread Rainer Pietsch
Am 06.01.2012 04:27, schrieb Jason Haar: > did you try scp (although that could be CPU-bound due to crypto), ftp or > wget - ie see how other TCP apps do the same job? If they all show the > same speed - it's not an rsync problem > Ok, I try this. But I assume that netperf do exactly that. -- M

Re: Low performance

2012-01-05 Thread Ing. Rainer Pietsch
Am 04.01.2012 16:24, schrieb Donald Pearson: Perhaps it's time to look at a pcap of the rsync transfer. Throughput is in the aggregate over time, I've seen instances where there are excessively long delays between packets causing a low overall throughput. Ok, verry good idea! I try this and p

Re: Low performance

2012-01-05 Thread Jason Haar
did you try scp (although that could be CPU-bound due to crypto), ftp or wget - ie see how other TCP apps do the same job? If they all show the same speed - it's not an rsync problem -- Cheers Jason Haar Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd. Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635

Re: Low performance

2012-01-04 Thread Rainer Pietsch
Am 04.01.2012 10:46, schrieb Hendrik Visage: > On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM, R. Pietsch wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I do a rsync between 2 machines. The throughput is only 2 MByte/Sec. >> >> Each machine is a Supermicro server with >>2 x 8 Core Opteron 6128 >>64 GByte of ECC RAM >>1 LSI Me

Re: Low performance

2012-01-04 Thread Hendrik Visage
On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 3:42 PM, R. Pietsch wrote: > > Hi! > > I do a rsync between 2 machines. The throughput is only 2 MByte/Sec. > > Each machine is a Supermicro server with >    2 x 8 Core Opteron 6128 >    64 GByte of ECC RAM >    1 LSI MegaRAID SAS 9280-24i4e >    24 x 2TByte SATA Disks as a

Re: Low performance

2012-01-04 Thread Rainer Pietsch
Am 03.01.2012 22:28, schrieb Tomasz Ciolek: > Hi All > > On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:05:42PM -0500, Kevin Korb wrote: >> Are these files new files being initially copied or are they modified >> files being updated? New files -> initial copy >> >> Does --whole-file or --inplace make a difference

Re: Low performance

2012-01-03 Thread Tomasz Ciolek
Hi All On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 02:05:42PM -0500, Kevin Korb wrote: > Are these files new files being initially copied or are they modified > files being updated? > > Does --whole-file or --inplace make a difference? > > On 01/03/12 08:42, R. Pietsch wrote: > > > > Hi! > > > > I do a rsync bet

Re: Low performance

2012-01-03 Thread Kevin Korb
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Are these files new files being initially copied or are they modified files being updated? Does --whole-file or --inplace make a difference? On 01/03/12 08:42, R. Pietsch wrote: > > Hi! > > I do a rsync between 2 machines. The throughput is only 2

Low performance

2012-01-03 Thread R. Pietsch
Hi! I do a rsync between 2 machines. The throughput is only 2 MByte/Sec. Each machine is a Supermicro server with 2 x 8 Core Opteron 6128 64 GByte of ECC RAM 1 LSI MegaRAID SAS 9280-24i4e 24 x 2TByte SATA Disks as a RAID6 2 Intel Corporation 82599EB 10-Gigabit SFI/SFP+ Networ