From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 27 17:38:12 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-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 757A016A41F for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from mxout2.cac.washington.edu (mxout2.cac.washington.edu [140.142.33.4]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 158E543D45 for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:12 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from youshi10@u.washington.edu) Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.33.9]) by mxout2.cac.washington.edu (8.13.4+UW05.04/8.13.4+UW05.05) with ESMTP id j6RHcBWA024013 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:38:11 -0700 X-Auth-Received: from [128.95.196.181] (dhcp196-181.ee.washington.edu [128.95.196.181]) (authenticated authid=youshi10) by smtp.washington.edu (8.13.4+UW05.04/8.13.4+UW05.07) with ESMTP id j6RHcAft019610 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:38:11 -0700 Message-ID: <42E7C685.4080405@u.washington.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:38:13 -0700 From: Garrett Cooper User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Macintosh/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: 100Mbit network performance - again X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:38:12 -0000 Chris wrote: > I have diff experience, I get around 7500kB/sec max windows to windows > using realtek, and freebsd can get the same but uses less cpu in doing > so, I put it down to realtek just been poor and the FreeBSD and > windows drivers not been great, I have seen both windows and FreeBSD > handle higher transfer rates with better quality network cards, if > performance is essential for your network then invest in good > hardware. > > Chris > > On 27/07/05, martin hudec wrote: > > >> Hello, >> >> On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 03:13:50AM +0400 or thereabouts, Andrew P. >> wrote: >> >> >>> Erm, well 60+Mbytes is no wonder in a Gigabit environment (and it is >>> too much of a wonder in a FastEthernet one), but I'm interested in >>> getting 100Mbit hardware to work at full speed. >>> >> >> If I take that your "NE2000 $10 NIC's" is what you call 100Mbit >> hardware, then.. would you mind if I ask: what do you expect more from >> such $10-harware other than just to flicker and to eat electric current? >> >> Use *real* 100Mbit hardware please :) . BTW I have same performance >> with my sis900/rl8139 NIC's. >> >> cheers, >> Martin >> >> -- >> martin hudec >> >> >> * 421 907 303 393 >> * corwin@aeternal.net >> * http://www.aeternal.net >> >> "Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible >> exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws." >> >> Douglas Adams, "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" >> > Haha... Samba's a given. It's always slow as hell. HTTP... hmmm. What server are you serving HTTP traffic with and what are the stats of the server hardware/load and also which client are you using to connect to the server? But the real question is what sort of CPU speed/RAM/HD speeds and what version(s) of each OS are using in your machines? Performance can vary greatly with these factors. If you don't like Samba, try SFU's NFS thanks to MS . One of the only decent things that MS has come out with ever. When communicating with 2 machines (Windows client, FreeBSD/Linux server) I had very little lag and things got close to the full 10Mb/s I think (didn't empirically measure the value). You can also use Cygwin based NFS if you only want a client and not a server. -Garrett