Hello all
ok.. but what can be done to get better throughput with the Accton/ 
Realtek interface ?
or can I forget to get any better performance ?

Den 06/02/2008 kl. 1.42 skrev Michael Lorenz:

> -----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-----

regards
niels