On 13.06.2018 12:56, Viktor VM Mihajlovski wrote: > On 12.06.2018 08:17, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 11.06.2018 14:03, Viktor VM Mihajlovski wrote: > [...] >> >> If you have the time to look at the traffic, could you please also check >> the TFTP block size option that is negotiated at the beginning of the >> TFTP transfer? If this other client is negotiating a transfer block size >> that is bigger than the one from the s390-ccw firmware, this could >> explain the differences in the downloading time, too. >> >> libnet from SLOF currently uses a block size of 1428. This is the size >> where all TFTP data should still fit nicely into one ethernet packet - >> and this is also the size which is still supported by all TFTP servers >> that support the blksize option. But theoretically it's also possible to >> use a bigger block sizes if both, the server and the client support >> fragmented UDP packets. Unfortunately, as far as I can see, SLOF's >> libnet does not support fragmented UDP packets, so we can't increase the >> block size here anymore so easily. > > You will be pleased to hear that the SLOF TFTP client outperforms the > busybox version (which uses 544-byte packets) by 30%. There's some > randomness introduced by the differences in DHCP response times which is > clearly not the client's fault. All is good...
Ah, great, thanks for checking! So I'm going to prepare a pull request for this next... Thomas
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
