Subject: Re: ftp performance with netbsd ?
To: None <seebs@solon.com>
From: Phil Nelson <phil@cs.wwu.edu>
List: current-users
Date: 06/06/1995 15:43:44
I have seen some "interesting" results with NetBSD to a Sun over
to ethernets with a router in between them.
The following is with the local machine being a 486 running NetBSD and
the remote machine being a SPARC 5 running SUNOS 4.1.3_U1. This IS
repeatable and the lower number appears to always be about a factor
of 100 slower than the other direction.
ftp> get musictex.zip
local: musictex.zip remote: musictex.zip
200 PORT command successful.
150 Binary data connection for musictex.zip (140.160.164.6,1224) (596480 bytes).
226 Binary Transfer complete.
596480 bytes received in 191 seconds (3130 bytes/s)
ftp> put musictex.zip junk
local: musictex.zip remote: junk
200 PORT command successful.
150 Binary data connection for junk (140.160.164.6,1225).
226 Binary Transfer complete.
596480 bytes sent in 1.52 seconds (391176 bytes/s)
ftp>
But, notice, it is not only ftp .... So there is something wrong .....
bashful[8]$ time rcp fawn:musictex.zip .
61.89 real 0.04 user 0.66 sys
bashful[9]$ time rcp musictex.zip fawn:junk
7.14 real 0.02 user 0.63 sys
And now for another interesting point ... between a 486 NetBSD machine
and the same SPARC 5 connected over the same ether .....
nooksack[67]$ time rcp fawn:musictex.zip .
2.38 real 0.02 user 0.65 sys
nooksack[68]$ time rcp musictex.zip fawn:junk
2.34 real 0.01 user 0.73 sys
AND
ftp> get musictex.zip
local: musictex.zip remote: musictex.zip
200 PORT command successful.
150 Binary data connection for musictex.zip (140.160.140.251,1489) (596480 bytes).
226 Binary Transfer complete.
596480 bytes received in 1.94 seconds (307965 bytes/s)
ftp> put musictex.zip junk
local: musictex.zip remote: junk
200 PORT command successful.
150 Binary data connection for junk (140.160.140.251,1490).
226 Binary Transfer complete.
596480 bytes sent in 2.49 seconds (239844 bytes/s)
SO, my only conclusion here must be that the router between the NetBSD
machine and the SPARC 5 is the problem or is part of the problem.
--
Phil Nelson
e-mail: phil@cs.wwu.edu
http://www.cs.wwu.edu/~phil