Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 17:31:48 -0400 From: Gary Palmer <gpalmer@freebsd.org> To: Freebsd-sparc64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Terrible hme throughput Message-ID: <20060927213148.GB60529@in-addr.com> In-Reply-To: <1159391956.5199.15.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com> References: <1159391956.5199.15.camel@pinot.fmjassoc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Sep 27, 2006 at 02:19:16PM -0700, Frank Jahnke wrote: > fj>> using scp on a large file are about 1.3MB/s. > > > > try an scp to localhost. > > > > 1MB/s is about what I get with 500MHz UltraSPARC IIe. The scp built > > into Solaris (compiled with Studio or Forte or something I assume) is > > a little over twice as fast on a 440MHz UltraSPARC IIi. sorry I can't > > compare exactly the same hardware, but I'm assuming the compiler is > > probably the difference. > > Well, I get about 0.9MB/s using scp to copy from the original file to > localhost. The overhead on both ends of the transfer undoubtedly explains > the (slightly) lower transfer rates. > > *Sheesh* > > OTOH, I recall that people are using this level of hardware as routers, and > I recall them getting about 30Mb/s (or 4MB/s) through them. Is there really > that much overhead with scp? >From memory, back in the dim and murky past when I was a Solaris admin, I heard co-workers comment that the math involved in SSL/SSH encryption was not particularly nice to SPARC/UltraSPARC CPUs. Or rather, the CPUs were not particularly fast when faced with that math. End result - booming business for SSL offloaders. I've seen an Ultra II push > 20MBit/sec with Firewall 1 loaded doing hme<->hme routing, so I strongly suspect its related to ssh/scp/sftp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060927213148.GB60529>