Searching \ for '[EE] Typical throughput on a Gigabit LAN?' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/microchip/devices.htm?key=pic
Search entire site for: 'Typical throughput on a Gigabit LAN?'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Typical throughput on a Gigabit LAN?'
2008\02\22@074445 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Hello,

Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.

Thanks,
Gerhard

2008\02\22@080408 by Marc Nicholas

picon face
Jumbo frames will make a difference if they can be used. TOE-NICs also
help sometimes, but provide "less bang for the buck" and require new
hardware.

-marc



On 2/22/08, Gerhard Fiedler <spam_OUTlistsTakeThisOuTspamconnectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
> and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
> kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
> outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.
>
> Thanks,
> Gerhard
>
> -

2008\02\22@090923 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Gerhard Fiedler
<.....listsKILLspamspam@spam@connectionbrazil.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
>  and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
>  kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
>  outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.
>

I do not have experiences with Gigabit lan (even though the
computers now often have the adpater, the switch is still not
as popular for home uers and average office users).

But the following sites may provide some real data.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000339.html (more
practical data)

www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3111&p=20
(more like theoretical value, absolute best throughput scenario)

Xiaofan.

2008\02\22@121430 by Bob Blick

face picon face
Hi Gerhard,

It's typically limited by the cpu of the slowest machine, not its disk
drives. You want your fileserver to be a smokin' hot machine if it will
serve multiple clients. No shared-memory video.

Expect 200 Mbits/second if you do everything right. 50 Mbits/second if
you do it wrong.

Don't use a MyBook World for your fileserver :)

Cheerful regards,

Bob


Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
> and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
> kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
> outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.

2008\02\22@224314 by Matthew Miller

flavicon
face
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 09:44:25AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
> and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
> kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
> outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.

Typical? No, but between two computers on the same network, using software
RAID-5, I got an average of about ~30MB/s. Not too great, but one machine
was old, had IDE disks, and the like.

A back-of-the-envelope shows that around 110MB/s is the max, but that is
optimistic. For my cheap equipment, I'm satisfied.

Matt.

2008\02\23@043728 by Jake Anderson

flavicon
face
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 09:44:25AM -0300, Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
>  
>> Hello,
>>
>> Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit LAN,
>> and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing all
>> kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough to
>> outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.
>>    
>
> Typical? No, but between two computers on the same network, using software
> RAID-5, I got an average of about ~30MB/s. Not too great, but one machine
> was old, had IDE disks, and the like.
>
> A back-of-the-envelope shows that around 110MB/s is the max, but that is
> optimistic. For my cheap equipment, I'm satisfied.
>
> Matt.
>  
Just to confirm i get the same bandwidth with a netgear Gig-E switch.
Using netcat to transfer a file from a 3x raid array (320gb sata disks)
to a high speed 36gb scsi.
I haven't taken a big look at the cause of the slow down, though i might
try a few things and see if i can find the bottleneck later.

2008\02\23@103131 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>> Does anyone have any experience about typical throughput on a gigabit
>> LAN, and on what it depends to be high? I'm thinking about centralizing
>> all kinds of local storage at one server, and if that were fast enough
>> to outpace the disks, then this wouldn't have any downsides.

> But the following sites may provide some real data.
> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000339.html (more practical
> data)

Thanks to all who responded. The article above is the most useful I've seen
so far about this issue.

Basically, it seems that 30MB/s throughput is very likely, and up to 80MB/s
is possible. (A good SATA disk is ~80MB/s, typical IDE and USB2 disks are
around 30MB/s.)

Which answers my question... In general, it's possible to use it for file
storage without problems. Only if the files are really big or worked a lot
or the speed is for other reasons critical, it may not be enough.

Gerhard

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...