From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Sep 19 08:11:19 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id IAA17172
          for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:11:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dyson.iquest.net (dyson.iquest.net [198.70.144.127])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id IAA17145;
          Thu, 19 Sep 1996 08:11:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from root@localhost) by dyson.iquest.net (8.7.5/8.6.9) id KAA08270; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:10:15 -0500 (EST)
From: "John S. Dyson" <toor@dyson.iquest.net>
Message-Id: <199609191510.KAA08270@dyson.iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Very Slow Ethernet Link (FreeBSD v. Linux)
To: rls@mail.id.net (Robert Shady)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:10:15 -0500 (EST)
Cc: pete@sms.fi, jab@rock.anchorage.net, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.org,
        hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199609191440.KAA09105@server.id.net> from "Robert Shady" at Sep 19, 96 10:40:39 am
Reply-To: dyson@FreeBSD.org
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME8]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> >> Using FreeBSD 2.1.0:
> >> 
> >> ftp transfer with freebsd 1927427 bytes @ 4.2e+02 seconds 4.4kb/s
> >> 
> >> Removing FreeBSD and Installed Linux 2.0
> >> 
> >> ftp transfer with Linux    1927427 bytes @  3.05 seconds (6.2e+02 kb/s) Wooo Wooo :)
> >> 
> >> Using the exact same configuration and computer, the reults are in the
> >> Linux favor by far.
> >> Don't know what the problem was.
> 
> > You did a ftp to the loopback-address? This is a known problem with
> > the MTU if you did. Set the MTU to 1500 or something more reasonable.
> 
> I *HOPE* this wasn't to the loopback address, my tests show
> 
> ftp> get ids
> local: ids remote: ids
> 200 PORT command successful.
> 150 Opening BINARY mode data connection for ids (1152582 bytes).
> 226 Transfer complete.
> 1152582 bytes received in 1.41 seconds (797.68 Kbytes/s)
> 
> 800KB/second to the loopback on a heavily loaded machine.. 
> 
I think that the loopback buffer size "feature" has been fixed
in 2.2 for quite a while???

John