Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:16:05 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jpt@msc.edu (Joseph Thomas) Cc: danny@panda.hilink.com.au, shovey@buffnet.net, robert@nanguo.chalmers.com.au, freebsd-isp@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC 1323 default settings (was Re: progress report on connection problems) Message-ID: <199701290016.RAA09514@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <199701282340.RAA10860@ww.msc.edu> from "Joseph Thomas" at Jan 28, 97 05:40:18 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> As a data point - running a local-area ATM with "out of the box" > parameters (for 2.2 this looks to be 16K windows with no-scaling), I get > 60 KB/s out of the box vs 3.0-3.5 MB/s into the box, [notice the really > bad discrepancy] via ftp. With larger windows (60KB), I can get in the > range of 3.5-4.0 MB/s [either 'put xxx /dev/null' or 'get xxx /dev/null' > so local disk access is somewhat unrelated. That is, the numbers don't > vary much if I'm sending from local disk or receiving to /dev/null.] > > Using ttcp (tcp user application, memory to memory), I've transmitted > close to 70 Mb/s, in the "local-area". I'm not sure that getting twice > the throughput counts as being 'not long enough'. > > [I'm simply providing this as a data point for the discussion, not attempting > or interested in arguing for or against either side.] Uh, isn't 70/3.5 20 times, not 2 times? Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701290016.RAA09514>