Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!lynx.aba.net.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.mel.connect.com.au!news.mira.net.au!vic.news.telstra.net!act.news.telstra.net!psgrain!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!newshub.csu.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!newsfeeder.sdsu.edu!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!server.cs.vt.edu!ceharris From: ceharris@mal.com (Carl Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: 100BaseT tuning considerations? Date: 2 Sep 1996 23:31:21 GMT Organization: Maladjusted Communications Lines: 23 Message-ID: <50fqo9$fkp@server.cs.vt.edu> References: <4vin1s$4um@server.cs.vt.edu> <4vv8aj$3sh@ardbeg.islay.sub.org> Reply-To: ceharris@mal.com NNTP-Posting-Host: mal9000.mal.com X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Patrick M. Hausen (pmh@ardbeg.islay.sub.org) wrote: : What's wrong with that? Have you ever seen 2 high performance Pentium : servers with Intel Etherexpress Pro/100 running that "industry standard" : Unix called SCO Open Server 5.0? : 1.1 MByte per second - you are getting almost five times as much ;-). : Seriously - 100MBit/s is the available bandwith, not necessarily your : peer-to-peer performance. As other posters stated, watch your CPU usage : and experiment with the window size. I'm mostly interested in determining what factors are limiting the use of the available bandwidth, not so much in actually using that bandwidth. It's precisely the issue that peer-to-peer performance is not what one would expect from a reasonably high-performance kernel on high-performance machines that interests me. I don't really care how badly SCO performs -- it's beyond hope or salvation. -- Carl Harris Systems Engineer CNS Research and Planning, Virginia Tech ceharris@vt.edu