Hi - What do you mean by "read test"?  hdparm?
hdparm -tT /dev/sda1
/dev/sda1: Timing cached reads:   8412 MB in  2.00 seconds = 4207.53 MB/sec 
Timing buffered disk reads: 190 MB in  1.94 seconds =  97.96 MB/sec
# hdparm -Tt /dev/sda3
/dev/sda3: Timing cached reads:   7400 MB in  2.00 seconds = 3703.93 MB/sec 
Timing buffered disk reads: 186 MB in  3.02 seconds =  61.58 MB/sec

ftp (With ss)
ESTAB      0      477840   ::ffff:192.168.123.2:ftp-data   
::ffff:192.168.123.1:51161   ESTAB      0      360552   
::ffff:192.168.123.2:ftp-data   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:51161  
And results (Similar to iperf):
ftp> get 64Mb.ziplocal: 64Mb.zip remote: 64Mb.zip200 PORT command successful150 
Opening BINARY mode data connection for 64Mb.zip (67108864 bytes)226 Transfer 
complete67108864 bytes received in 42.11 secs (1556.2 kB/s)





Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:08:23 +0200
Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction (UDP good)
From: emi2f...@gmail.com
To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
CC: mtzgu...@gmail.com; debian-user@lists.debian.org

Hello John

Try to do read test on the sender, if you don't find any read problem try to do 
a transfer using ftp

Thanks



2013/4/12 John Elliot <johnellio...@hotmail.com>




Thanks for the reply:
ss results (wget in "bad" direction):
"Receiver" - Recv and Send does not change from "0":ESTAB       0      0        
                                         192.168.123.1:32815                    
                          192.168.123.2:www   

"Sender" - snapshots below:State       Recv-Q Send-Q                            
                Local Address:Port                                              
  Peer Address:Port   
ESTAB       0      505352                                            
192.168.123.2:www                                                
192.168.123.1:32816 

ESTAB       0      522728                                            
192.168.123.2:www                                                
192.168.123.1:32816 

ESTAB       0      328696                                            
192.168.123.2:www                                                
192.168.123.1:32816  

In the other direction:
Reciever:ESTAB      0      0           192.168.123.2:33036        
192.168.123.1:www 

Sender:ESTAB      0      535760   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www       
::ffff:192.168.123.2:33038 ESTAB      0      383720   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www  
     ::ffff:192.168.123.2:33038  
ESTAB      0      474944   ::ffff:192.168.123.1:www       
::ffff:192.168.123.2:33038





Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:06:38 +0200
Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction (UDP good)
From: emi2f...@gmail.com

To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
CC: mtzgu...@gmail.com; debian-user@lists.debian.org


Hello

Maybe it can the the disks write speed, anayway you can use netstat or ss
look for Recv-Q Send-Q columns



2013/4/12 John Elliot <johnellio...@hotmail.com>




Thanks again for your help with this.
I've run 500 pings (-c 500 -i 0) in both directions, and got zero loss.
Ill try running tcpdump on both servers, and re-testing to check the segments.


Swapping the servers would be extremely difficult ;)  (They are over 1000k's 
apart, and one is in an unmanned(majority of the time) data centre.

 


> From: mtzgu...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 01:38:40 -0300


> Subject: Re: iperf / ftp / http TCP poor performance in one direction (UDP 
> good)
> To: johnellio...@hotmail.com
> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org


> 
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 1:16 AM, Guido Martínez <mtzgu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Did you check if A acknowledges every received segment?


> Sorry, what I meant by this is if every sent segment from B reaches A.
> You can run an instance of wireshark on each host to check this.
> Basically you need to check for packet loss at high speeds (ping could


> be of use if you set the interval to 0).
> 
> TCP Dup ACKs are likely caused by packet loss.
> TCP segment of a reassembled PDU is something Wireshark adds since it
> interprets a bit about application layer protocols, and I think it's


> not a reason to worry (I could have understood this wrong, I just
> looked it up).
> 
> If it's easy, you could also try swapping the location of the hosts,
> to see if the problem is on the hosts, or on the link.


> 
> Hope it helps and post more info if you find any.
> Guido
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org 


> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 
> http://lists.debian.org/CA++DQUnEPW=oEAHY02MPSXihm-FpoAC3ddYOA0+m=vk...@mail.gmail.com


> 
                                          


-- 
esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
                                          


-- 
esta es mi vida e me la vivo hasta que dios quiera
                                          

Reply via email to