From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 27 09:48:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DF0116A41F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:48:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.194]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07C2D43D49 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:48:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from infofarmer@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i4so138580wra for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PGIMAjCFfmy7jqu8g7DxoPB/U2y5IUeURqywZN6lwVjdFtGewtyvyawesn1MajMQvYhzYQraq5r2TkWr4o8X1ru3W2VRV004FbcPfKQ5jIMi5GFpsEP6xDLSl2knfYw+EKXXe0GXeL+Pg2nqTjuLkHVlVzADL7J19mLpTRTJFJ4= Received: by 10.54.45.14 with SMTP id s14mr272003wrs; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.61.2 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 02:48:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 13:48:57 +0400 From: "Andrew P." To: Eric Schuele In-Reply-To: <42E70F2C.7000209@computer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <200507261631.45751.ringworm01@gmail.com> <42E70F2C.7000209@computer.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 100Mbit network performance - again X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: "Andrew P." List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:48:59 -0000 On 7/27/05, Eric Schuele wrote: > Andrew P. wrote: > > On 7/27/05, Michael C. Shultz wrote: > > > >>On Tuesday 26 July 2005 16:00, Andrew P. wrote: > >> > >>>Hello all! > >>> > >>>I remember being able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between two Win95 > >>>workstations with NE2000 $10 NIC's installed, connected via BNC cable. > >>>I am now able to reach 11-12Mbytes/s between all kinds of Windows > >>>2000/XP machines with all kinds of cheapest 100Mbit ethernet hardware. > >>> > >>>But I have never ever exceeded 8-9Mbytes/s between a Windows machine > >>>and a FreeBSD box - _never_. Be it Samba, different ftp/http servers, >=20 > FWIW... I recently had reason to investigate a network's performance. I > was able to consistently get ~95% throughput from windows machines to > FreeBSD boxes. I was using iperf (there is a WinX version of iperf as > well) and chargen for testing. All PCs were old, and generally using > cheap onboard NICs >=20 > Might try tools specifically geared towards throughput testing. Various > protocols have varying amounts of overhead. Tools with throughput > testing in mind obviously have overhead minimized. >=20 > Just my .02 cents. >=20 Well, I never doubted that some tests can show you efficient bandwidth usage. But how can we reach it in practice? > >>>different FreeBSD versions (4.x/5.x), with ipfw enabled or disabled, > >>>etc., - the speed always hovers around 7-8Mb/s. I know it's not > >>>critical, I know I should've upgraded to Gigabit hardware long ago, > >>>but is there something wrong? > >>> > >>>I tried different linux distros, but they all seem to be even slower. > >>>Wazzup?.. > >>> > >>>Thanks, > >>>Andrew P. > >> > >>Here is the "ifconfig" output from a machine that has one nic set at > >>10Mbit/half duplex and one at 100Mbit full duplex. how does it compare = with > >>your system? > >> > >>xl0: flags=3D8843 mtu 1500 > >> options=3D1 > >> inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe70:4fb0%xl0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > >> inet 71.102.0.97 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 71.102.0.255 > >> ether 00:10:4b:70:4f:b0 > >> media: Ethernet autoselect (10baseT/UTP) >=20 > .02 more cents..... > Sometimes autoselect can work against you. Might try tying it down. >=20 I have some problems with Autoselect on Cisco boxes in Gigabit environments, but never with FreeBSD on 100Mbit. > >> status: active > >>xl1: flags=3D8843 mtu 1500 > >> options=3D1 > >> inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255 > >> inet6 fe80::210:4bff:fe0a:7cbc%xl1 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x2 > >> ether 00:10:4b:0a:7c:bc > >> media: Ethernet 100baseTX > >> status: active > >> > > > > Well, if that really matters to you: > > (freebsd 5.4) > > vr0: flags=3D8843 mtu 1500 > > inet6 fe80::20f:3dff:feca:c494%vr0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x1 > > inet 192.168.17.217 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 > > ether 00:0f:3d:ca:c4:94 > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > > status: active > > rl0: flags=3D8843 mtu 1500 > > options=3D8 > > inet 192.168.17.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.17.255 > > ether 00:40:f4:8d:a7:f8 > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > > status: active > > rl1: flags=3D8843 mtu 1500 > > options=3D8 > > ether 00:40:f4:8d:9c:af > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX ) > > status: active > > (fedora core 4) > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:E0:81:2F:04:3E > > inet addr:193.233.5.13 Bcast:193.233.5.63 Mask:255.255.255.= 192 > > inet6 addr: fe80::2e0:81ff:fe2f:43e/64 Scope:Link > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > > RX packets:123946466 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > > TX packets:176380358 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > > RX bytes:42267471987 (39.3 GiB) TX bytes:197116022761 (183.5= GiB) > > Interrupt:177 > > > > Andrew P. > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd= .org" > > >=20 >=20 > -- > Regards, > Eric >=20 Thanks, Andrew P.