Am 2012-01-07 01:58, schrieb Jesse Molina: > > Also try iperf instead of netperf. As a network admin/eng, I prefer > iperf for this kind of testing. Thanks for the info!
I try to capture such a rsync-stream with wireshark. the times are for example: 10.510155 for the rsync-packet (Len=27512) 10.550024 for the Ack 10.550181 for the next rsync (len=27512) 10.589985 for the Ack and so on. I do not know if this is a good or a bad value for a 10GBit link over fibre. > > > > Rainer Pietsch wrote: >> Am 06.01.2012 04:27, schrieb Jason Haar: >>> did you try scp (although that could be CPU-bound due to crypto), >>> ftp or >>> wget - ie see how other TCP apps do the same job? If they all show the >>> same speed - it's not an rsync problem >>> >> Ok, I try this. >> >> But I assume that netperf do exactly that. >> >> > -- Mit freundlichen Grüßen / best regards Ing. Rainer Pietsch ---------------------------------------------------------- PCS - Pichler Computer Systeme Inh. Claudia Pichler-Pietsch Hauptplatz 10 A-2751 Steinabrückl Österreich / Austria ---------------------------------------------------------- mail: r.piet...@pcs-at.com web: http://www.pcs-at.com tel.: +43 (2622) 420 19 / 15 mobil: +43 (676) 31 242 69 fax: +43 (2622) 420 19 / 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- -- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
