From owner-freebsd-sparc64@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 27 20:52:25 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E93616A47E for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:52:25 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from smtp.wizwire.com (smtp.wizwire.com [209.218.100.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8631443D58 for ; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:52:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jahnke@sonatabio.com) Received: from pinot.fmjassoc.com (209.218.101.53.bvi2.wizwire.com [209.218.101.53]) by smtp.wizwire.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k8RKpDd8031110; Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:51:13 -0700 From: Frank Jahnke To: Lucas Holt In-Reply-To: <655D1BFE-663E-43FA-823A-580D1C750C1C@foolishgames.com> References: <1159385171.850.237.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> <7C3C28AA-2F03-4767-B480-8E1C499F0F94@foolishgames.com> <1159387883.850.243.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> <655D1BFE-663E-43FA-823A-580D1C750C1C@foolishgames.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 13:49:54 -0700 Message-Id: <1159390194.850.252.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-WizWire-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-WizWire-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: jahnke@sonatabio.com Cc: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Terrible hme throughput X-BeenThere: freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Sparc List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:52:25 -0000 On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 16:40 -0400, Lucas Holt wrote: > >> A few suggestions come to mind. Try another protocol and see what > >> type of transfer speeds you get. > > > > It there one you might suggest? > > You could always try ftp. In my experience its much faster than sftp > although not secure. Just to test it might be interesting. That would be the usual candidate; I'll have to enable it and then try it. This is all using computers behind a firewall that are inaccessible from the Internet. So security is of no concern for these tests. > > It is a SCSI drive using 20MB/s transfers at the controller. It has > > been tested and it works properly (about 15MB/s speeds). Though not > > fast, that should be plenty for a 100Mb/s network (typo in original > > post). > I'll get my sparc out later and do a little testing. I'd appreciate that. Mine is not a Sun (it was made by Tritec) but any low-end SPARC of the era ought to do. Even if it is an Ultra 5 with the slow IDE controller. I just can't see the controller making the big difference for this application. I would also appreciate it if you would copy the list so we can keep the thread in tact.