-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hello,

On Feb 5, 2008, at 19:29, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 09:00:02AM -0500, Michael Lorenz wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2008, at 08:38, Niels S. Eliasen wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Michael
>>> Well the old "default" interface "tlp0" delivered a better
>>> throughput.. and that's just plain old 10Mb Ethernet, whereas this
>>> one is 100Mb
>>
>> I doubt it. 1.1MB/s is pretty much the physical maximum you can
>> squeeze through a 10MBit/s ethernet interface, your results are both
>> higher although you're right, a fast ethernet interface should go
>> faster.
>
> Right.  The tlp should perform better than the rtk; they are both
> 100mbit/sec interfaces but the tlp is significantly less burdensome
> on the host cpu, which is almost certainly the bottleneck here.

The tlp in this machine is a 21041 which does only 10MBit/s

> This test is getting and putting files from the disk drive.  I am
> not surprised that a very old PowerBook cannot send data it has to
> read from its internal hard disk faster than 27Mbit/sec.
>
> A better test would be to use ttcp.

Or something bigger - 10MB hardly gives consistent results.

have fun
Michael
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)

iQEVAwUBR6kCWspnzkX8Yg2nAQIw9wf+J4K19zdJ7f7gfbQFXzlvKBFGJngQan1H
Z8VS8H6mALiPnavooAHs0h+um15HAnTGRYvvRZK17dOK9OEOgJo2q7TY35NBHhh5
G9z6ucF17OJGoInoCPmGbwJ14wThRLmJlveZ3q9FwsVtHjx/XXPSFvaPzzre3GE2
ZrIFhyzBmMuVn1b5EUrSg+EDmX1MnjN8aDJ3fSAmqogzJx0pcqeHtMCX0EsgY+X5
9cAIJ9u4689F92J0uTwvrsUWFAd+5uDZhtKQLbrJawwMpUSqbRT96cZ3mNnzGjRb
7B7JrGvT28nMQ8YkdoQvlF29Z/0yAWCEzoDwHmdZ5bNVf3P+pJIQuw==
=h69e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----