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 1PsQZR-00059k-Ph for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:04:46 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1CE31C01F for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:04:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F3011C012 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB9BE1B42E2 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:16:57 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.528 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.528 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.071, 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 Thc179DXmCvp for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F951B40A5 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:16:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PsPp0-0004S1-UB for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:16:47 +0100 Received: from rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com ([71.40.157.251]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:16:46 +0100 Received: from wireless by rrcs-71-40-157-251.se.biz.rr.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 24 Feb 2011 02:16:46 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: James Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: [OT] etho app rating 10/100 etc in megabytes Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 01:16:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: 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; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Loom/3.14 (http://gmane.org/) X-Loom-IP: 71.40.157.251 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101214 Gentoo/2.0.11 SeaMonkey/2.0.11) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 4d35d0ab48e4606424ae75bc24e94581 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. > 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! > gigabyte 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. emerge iotop (then rebuild kernel) Rebuild your kernel to use "iotop" and see what happens. You may need to tweak your kernel parameters to optimize IO operations..... (just gessing here).... hth, James