On Sat, 6 Sep 2008, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2008 at 11:57:56PM +0200, Michael Schmitz wrote:
> > Regarding performance afforded by having a 100 Mbit PHY instead of a 10 Mbit
> > one:
> >
> > EtherNAT: 210 KB/s out, 140 KB/s in (scp of a 35 MB vmlinux file)
> > EtherNEC: 175 KB/s out, 128 KB/s in (same file)
> >
> > Hardly worth it, eh?
>
> Well, if you're going to do scp, you're CPU-bound rather than NIC-bound,
> since SCP needs to encrypt. What happens if you use something less
> taxing on the CPU, like HTTP or some such?
(n)ttcp? netperf?
Yes, ssh overhead on low-performance CPUs is significant. Ask Arno about
his experiences on MicroVAX ;-)
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
