Sorry to interrupt,
Why I failed to use
$ iperf -c 155.X.Y.Z -r
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
connect failed: Connection refused
$ i
On 6/26/2012 1:03 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Yes snapping is the problem due to which i have to make the snapshot
> on local drive and further i have to copy the whole stuff via SCP.
> do you think iSCSI LUNs are faster as FTP. or i should first make a
> local copy then FTP to Storage?
Su
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/25/2012 3:08 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> agreed, KVM backup is is one of them. i am facing this problem most
>> often so as a workaround i need to backup all the VMs locally and then
>> i have to scp them to other network stora
On 6/25/2012 3:08 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> agreed, KVM backup is is one of them. i am facing this problem most
> often so as a workaround i need to backup all the VMs locally and then
> i have to scp them to other network storage.
scp is not the proper application for this due to overhea
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:22 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 5:45 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
>> [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 744 MBytes 624 Mbits/sec
>> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 876 MBytes 734 Mbits/sec
>
>> [ ID] Interval Transfer
On 6/22/2012 5:45 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 744 MBytes 624 Mbits/sec
> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 876 MBytes 734 Mbits/sec
> [ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
> [ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec744 MBytes623 Mbits/sec
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Bartek Krawczyk
wrote:
> 2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>>>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.11 GBytes 953 Mbits/sec
>>>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 585 MBytes 490 Mbits/sec 0.053 ms 393567/810629
>>
>> can you please explain what these two lines mean in the output.
>> i c
2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.11 GBytes 953 Mbits/sec
>>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 585 MBytes 490 Mbits/sec 0.053 ms 393567/810629
>
> can you please explain what these two lines mean in the output.
> i can understand the values but i can not understand it like what i
>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec 1.11 GBytes953 Mbits/sec
>[ 3] 0.0-10.0 sec585 MBytes490 Mbits/sec 0.053 ms 393567/810629
can you please explain what these two lines mean in the output.
i can understand the values but i can not understand it like what is
1.11GBytes and what is 953 and etc.
2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
> root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r -u -b 1024M
>
> Server listening on UDP port 5001
> Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
> UDP buffer size: 110 KByte (default)
> ---
root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r -u -b 1024M
Server listening on UDP port 5001
Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 110 KByte (default)
---
TCP Result
iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r -w 2M
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 256 KByte (WARNING: requested 2.00 MByte)
2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>> Try using -u or f.i. -w 2M with TCP.
>> But your results are quite good already.
>
> UDP only
>
> root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -u -r
>
> Server listening on UDP port 5001
> Receiving 1470 byte datag
> Try using -u or f.i. -w 2M with TCP.
> But your results are quite good already.
UDP only
root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -u -r
Server listening on UDP port 5001
Receiving 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 110 KByte (default)
2012/6/22 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
> ok here you go with the details
>
> this is the storage server NAS/SAN box
>
> root@nasbox:/# iperf -c 10.X.X.7 -r
>
> Server listening on TCP port 5001
> TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)
>
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner
>> wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>>
Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
On 6/22/2012 2:22 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
>> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
>> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
>> with Jumbo frame?
>
> I don't use jumbo frames here
On 6/21/2012 8:54 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Yes i am aware of the jumbo frame and played a bit with it in
> openfiler thanks for reminding me that btw are you getting 600Mbps
> with Jumbo frame?
I don't use jumbo frames here because:
1. Not all the desktop NICs support it
2. No single
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:32:11PM +0500, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > Your 200 to 300 Mbps correspond to your disk throughput in my opinion.
> > Try to use iperf to test your network throughput, and be well aware
> > that your disk io will be the real bottleneck here.
> sorry i got your questio
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Dan Ritter wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:32:11PM +0500, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> > Your 200 to 300 Mbps correspond to your disk throughput in my opinion.
>> > Try to use iperf to test your network throughput, and be well aware
>> > that your disk io wil
Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 18:32:11 +0500,
Muhammad Yousuf Khan a écrit :
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, bruno.deb...@cyberoso.com
> wrote:
> > Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:00:10 -0500,
> > Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> >
> >> On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >>
> >> > agreed, but my virt
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 3:05 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> i am using Debian with below specs
>> 1 GB RAM
>> Xeon 2.8
>> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>>
>> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
>> enough for me for now. bu
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, bruno.deb...@cyberoso.com
wrote:
> Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:00:10 -0500,
> Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>
>> On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> > agreed, but my virtualization system is 4 core xeon 2.3 with 8 GB
>> > RAM. 500 GB sata RAID 1 so i thin
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:19:40AM +0200, Bartek Krawczyk wrote:
>> 2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>> > i am using bw-ng however i am actually learning these stats from "scp"
>> > copy command and secondly from samba when i try to download so
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:28 PM, bruno.deb...@cyberoso.com
wrote:
> Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:00:10 -0500,
> Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>
>> On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> > agreed, but my virtualization system is 4 core xeon 2.3 with 8 GB
>> > RAM. 500 GB sata RAID 1 so i thin
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 6/21/2012 3:05 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> i am using Debian with below specs
>> 1 GB RAM
>> Xeon 2.8
>> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>>
>> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
>> enough for me for now. bu
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 11:19:40AM +0200, Bartek Krawczyk wrote:
> 2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
> > i am using bw-ng however i am actually learning these stats from "scp"
> > copy command and secondly from samba when i try to download some huge
> > files from samba to windows host. my network g
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 06:00:10AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Samba uses TCP because its protocol is CIFS/SMB, which use TCP. Samba
> doesn't speak TCP. CIFS/SMB are two layers up the OSI stack. They you
> can't "tune" Samba's network performance. You can only tune Linux' TCP
> performance,
Le Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:00:10 -0500,
Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
> On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> > agreed, but my virtualization system is 4 core xeon 2.3 with 8 GB
> > RAM. 500 GB sata RAID 1 so i think hardware will not be a problem
>
> You keep mentioning all your hardware
On 6/21/2012 5:28 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> agreed, but my virtualization system is 4 core xeon 2.3 with 8 GB RAM.
> 500 GB sata RAID 1 so i think hardware will not be a problem
You keep mentioning all your hardware specs but what counts most:
THE NIC
> only 1 switch which is 1 GB suppo
On 6/21/2012 3:05 AM, Muhammad Yousuf Khan wrote:
> i am using Debian with below specs
> 1 GB RAM
> Xeon 2.8
> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>
> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
> enough for me for now. but i am planning ahead to use ISCSI for
> virtualization to prov
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Bartek Krawczyk
wrote:
> 2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>> i am using bw-ng however i am actually learning these stats from "scp"
>> copy command and secondly from samba when i try to download some huge
>> files from samba to windows host. my network graph bumps
2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
> i am using bw-ng however i am actually learning these stats from "scp"
> copy command and secondly from samba when i try to download some huge
> files from samba to windows host. my network graph bumps up n down b/w
> 200 to 300 Mbps.
scp is a bad idea - think ab
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Bartek Krawczyk
wrote:
> 2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
>> i am using Debian with below specs
>> 1 GB RAM
>> Xeon 2.8
>> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>>
>> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
>> enough for me for now. but i am planning
2012/6/21 Muhammad Yousuf Khan :
> i am using Debian with below specs
> 1 GB RAM
> Xeon 2.8
> 2 TB SATA x2 (RAID 1)
>
> i learn that my LAN throughput is like 200 to 300 Mbps which is quite
> enough for me for now. but i am planning ahead to use ISCSI for
> virtualization to provide HA, therefore
37 matches
Mail list logo
