From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1CF1E1382C5 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 22:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 29081E083D; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 22:43:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail142c7.megamailservers.com (mail773.megamailservers.com [69.49.98.83]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C58E3E0827 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 22:43:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-User: admin@sys-concept.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=megamailservers.com; s=mailtor; t=1610750626; bh=T2EFi0r3a6QDrKYNlLj9AtvUEj7uIbqXCWRPfKZhYIQ=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NRVtyoylkzJqnAzoF+hP86YLrdhCDIFPmIPpPFY2VaAoHGahKFTiAwIb/J0dHIGsD N7sFz/LH5xwSule7174Ei1M919Uv2nEpsJcuotWUeZJsJ7UxCkNgG0w2GEXVi6OxvA 87ObESEIPKgBLdo4Yq/a+SowBq0p+ztHdx9l/q8E= Feedback-ID:thelma@sys-conc X-VIP: 69.49.109.100 Received: from [10.0.0.109] 184.69.242.18":"18099 ([184.69.242.18]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail142c7.megamailservers.com (8.14.9/8.13.1) with ESMTP id 10FMhh24023355 for ; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 17:43:45 -0500 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] network transfer speed To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org References: <2193945.ElGaqSPkdT@dell_xps> <97df8c5d-2963-a59f-ab42-7b5a0a33681d@sys-concept.com> <17080d29-e525-9cec-da43-2702b0de9aca@users.sourceforge.net> From: thelma@sys-concept.com Message-ID: Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:43:36 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <17080d29-e525-9cec-da43-2702b0de9aca@users.sourceforge.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-CA Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-CTCH-RefID: str=0001.0A742F1C.60021AA2.0004:SCFSTAT54230205,ss=1,re=-4.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0 X-CTCH-VOD: Unknown X-CTCH-Spam: Unknown X-CTCH-Score: -4.000 X-CTCH-Rules: X-CTCH-Flags: 0 X-CTCH-ScoreCust: 0.000 X-CSC: 0 X-CHA: v=2.3 cv=VLWjYOHX c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:117 a=u3gW5Uk2xAGXuEgp5FffjQ==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=aITpR_30HMqvhddVIDIA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 X-VADE-SPAMSTATE: clean X-VADE-SPAMSCORE: 0 X-VADE-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrtdefgddtudcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfjqffuvffqrffktedpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtkeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpehthhgvlhhmrgesshihshdqtghonhgtvghpthdrtghomhenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeehgfehfeehtdejffffffetleffudetjedtieeifefghefhveeftdduieehtdefleenucfkphepudekgedrieelrddvgedvrddukeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepihhnvghtpedukeegrdeiledrvdegvddrudekpdhhvghloheplgdutddrtddrtddruddtlegnpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepthhhvghlmhgrsehshihsqdgtohhntggvphhtrdgtohhmpdhrtghpthhtohepghgvnhhtohhoqdhushgvrheslhhishhtshdrghgvnhhtohhordhorhhg X-Origin-Country: CA X-Archives-Salt: 7dc79565-204c-4fb9-a92a-6394f6bb1a94 X-Archives-Hash: 83e9bd3ef1868d83b5041aa102acbfe5 On 1/15/21 9:55 AM, Jack wrote: [snip] >>>> >>>> I don't know where does the file he sync from. >>>> If you sync a file from a server in other city, for a 20 to 22MB/s speed >>>> is very normal. But if in home, that is not good. >>>> >>>> And for ftp and rsync. >>>>       ftp is better for transferring a single large file once. >>>>       rsync is better for a long-term, incremental synchronization. The >>>> file verification of rsync may take a lot of time for first sync. >>> There is a theoretical network speed as already mentioned.  There is a >>> protocol speed, which may limit throughput if it has e.g. heavy encryption/ >>> compression and the CPU is anaemic.  Finally, there is a MoBo bus (SCSI/SATA/ >>> USB) and the media storage limit.  If using USB 1.1 or 2.0 and/or the disks >>> are slow or experience write amplification, you'll find this will constrain >>> the final transfer speed significantly. >> The computers on this network are 2-meters apart and they both use SSD Drive (so USB limitation doesn't come under consideration). >> Like I said, on my home network when I transfer the 24GB file I get about 110MiBps transfer, so I was expecting the same in remote location). >> Some units are connected to a router Ausus RT-AC66U B1 but these ports are gigabit too. > When you say the computers are remote, is it possible the file is passing through your local computer on the way between the two remote machines?  Where are you actually running the rsync command? The fact that I'm logged via ssh over VPN to a remote network should not have any influence over network speed. I just made a loop: Network A ==> Internet ==> Network B ssh back to Network A over internet and run "rsync" I got same speed (as if I run the command locally) on Network A 112MB/s So the limiting factor is somewhere else.