From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1PserJ-0005hs-QD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:20:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5996A1C00A for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:20:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55C861C068 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00F41B402D for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:10:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -3.302 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.302 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.703, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fdW26cfc2OXL for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:09:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AABBE1B4027 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PsehH-0001po-53 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:09:47 +0100 Received: from c-98-215-183-196.hsd1.in.comcast.net ([98.215.183.196]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:09:47 +0100 Received: from reader by c-98-215-183-196.hsd1.in.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:09:47 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Harry Putnam Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] etho app rating 10/100 etc in megabytes Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:09:30 -0600 Organization: Still searching... Message-ID: <871v2xgy0l.fsf@newsguy.com> References: <87pqqlq9y2.fsf@newsguy.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-215-183-196.hsd1.in.comcast.net User-Agent: Gnus/5.110014 (No Gnus v0.14) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:mwoO+jSoZUOzvptKe+Os4bY9pFc= X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 60b8841edf539d2b17c33d704f6a75e5 James writes: > Harry Putnam newsguy.com> writes: > > > >> But still, when I'm trying to measure how much data is moving > > emerge bwmon, > > It measures across the ethernet ports, so adjust your test, > according to what you want to measure, crossing the ethernet > port on the target system. First off.. thanks for the tips and help. All I get from bwmon is a large mess of incomprehensible data ending in ,---- | b7841000-b7881000 r-xp 00000000 03:05 6663 /lib/libncurses.so.5.7 | [...] | b789e000-b78ba000 r-xp 00000000 03:05 7228 /lib/ld-2.12.2.so | b78ba000-b78bb000 r-xp 00000000 00:00 0 [vdso] | b78bb000-b78bc000 r--p 0001c000 03:05 7228 /lib/ld-2.12.2.so | b78bc000-b78bd000 rw-p 0001d000 03:05 7228 /lib/ld-2.12.2.so | bffae000-bffc4000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 [stack] | Aborted `---- And it has no man page whatsoever. (it has a little help at bwmon -h) But I recall using bwmon years ago so not sure whats happening that it crashes for me. >> and it seems quite slow for what is supposed to be a gigabyte network. > > Gigabit ethernet rarely runs full out constantly, something, (ram, cpu, > interface, swith-latency....) mucks things up. Do not let your "copper" > get to long either! But that figures out to about 3-4 MB per second (assuming I did the math right) I said it was averaging about 230-237 MBytes per MINUTE , so giving it a nice round 240 MB per MINUTE: 240 / 60 = 4MB per second... and that figures out to: ( using this forumula: 1MBytes ps = 8000000 bits ps or 8 Mbits ps) 4 * 8000000 = 32 Mbits ps That is not counting packets going the other way of course, but isn't an incoming speed of 32Mega bits per second what one might expect from adapters capable of 100 mbps... (not gigabit (1000)) What you've shown below appears to show gigabit network between h4 and h5. Is that really to be expected? >> gigabyte switch >> | | >> | | >> (192.168.0.9) h4 h5 (192.168.0.17) If you show the top half of the diagram you snipped, you see that h4 h5 are aimed at a switch/router/firewall above, that is only 100mbps. The gigaswitch has no address, so I'm wondering if traffic between h4 and h5 has to go up thru the 100Mbps router to communicate with each other. I realized when I made the diagram that I was probably looking for gigabit speeds where really only 100mbps was possible. Take another look at the diagram (Knowing that h4 and h5 have there default routes set to the netgear (100mbps) router. Would it still be possible that h4 and h5 would communicate direct thru the gigabit switch or would that traffic have to go up thru the 100 Mbps router above? (Note that in the previous diagram I had mislabled (just a typo) the gigabit switch as gigabyte switch) internet | | | (netgear router is lan `default route' <= 10/100***** NETGEAR ROUTER (inside address 192.168.0.20) | | | | | | (192.168.0.5) h1 | h3 (192.168.0.7) | | gigabit switch | | | | (192.168.0.9) h4 h5 (192.168.0.17) >> But also if I should be expecting h4 h5 to be able to use GigaByte >> transfer speeds. > > Some fraction say 50% is good, if it is copper, unless the systems > are smoking "gaming" systems or of very high quality resources. I keep having a sneaking feeling I'm making some horrible mistake in the math, but wouldn't the speeds I posted (240 MegaBytes per min) figure out to something like 3.2+ % of the rated 1000 Mbits. (I really hope I haven't demonstrated idiocy levels of math)