LAN speed
-
That should do.
-
@marcinozga said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@marcinozga said:
Set up ftp server on that NAS and try to transfer a few big files. Hardly anything comes close to ftp in terms of raw speed.
Still needs those "few big items" though.
Linux distro iso for example.
yeah - I was asking earlier for a way to do this (Scott said use dd) so the OP doesn't have to download something first.
-
ok thank you guys, i think 200Mbs is ok now, better than 44Mbs
-
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
-
@IT-ADMIN said:
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
Define "what it is supposed to be?" What makes you feel that it should be faster?
-
Just for a quick reference, this is my latest iperf run between my workstation and the server. Network is 1GB with 2x1GB LAGs between each switch.
Server listening on TCP port 5001
TCP window size: 85.3 KByte (default)[ 4] local 192.168.0.20 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.45 port 60691
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth
[ 4] 0.0-10.0 sec 683 MBytes 572 Mbits/sec
[ 5] local 192.168.0.20 port 5001 connected with 192.168.0.45 port 60715
[ 5] 0.0-10.0 sec 680 MBytes 569 Mbits/secIt's a little slower than I'd like to see, but that's really not terrible for an in-use network. When everybody else is gone it does go up to the 800Mbits/sec transfer. This of course is not going to give any sort of real bearing on drive speed, just how fast the network can go.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@IT-ADMIN said:
but still very less that what it's supposed to be
Define "what it is supposed to be?" What makes you feel that it should be faster?
Exactly - Until you test transfering a 4+ GB file so you have at least 1 min of sustained transfer on a single file you won't really know what you're getting.
As Scott mentioned, small files are the killer of SMB protocol.
