[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Network file transfer rate comparisons
- To: "\"TSD::AIP1::\\\"Len%HEART-OF-GOLD\\\"%atc.bendix.com\"%RELAY.CS.NET"@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- Subject: Network file transfer rate comparisons
- From: Chris Lindblad <cjl@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 13:26:00 EST
- Cc: SLUG@WARBUCKS.AI.SRI.COM
- In-reply-to: <8901261740.AA02137@wheaties.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 10:09 EST
From: Len Moskowitz <Len@HEART-OF-GOLD>
It seems to me that your performance test will reflect disk access times just as much as network
performance. I tried it with a 3675 accessing its own two large drives (a 515 and a 470) using
NFILE and found the following performance:
(io-performance-test (fs:parse-pathname "h:>len>temp>temp.temp"))
Wrote a file of 1048576 bytes in 15.166667 seconds for 69136.875 bytes-per-second.
Read a file of 1048576 bytes in 12.466666 seconds for 84110.375 bytes-per-second.
These times are roughly twice as fast as your 3650. Assuming the network end of things is the
same on both our machines, the difference is made up by the disk, no? When you're comparing the
different network protocols, you might keep in mind that disk performance is a significant
I tried the test on DNA's DAP between the 3675 and our VAXen:
(IO-PERFORMANCE-TEST (FS:PARSE-PATHNAME "tsd1:disk$irandd:[lm26446]temp.temp"))
Wrote a file of 1048576 bytes in 37.816666 seconds for 27727.88 bytes-per-second.
Read a file of 1048576 bytes in 43.683334 seconds for 24004.03 bytes-per-second.
Here's the additional information: The 3650 file server was on the same
subnet as my machine, with the files on 470 MB Fujitsu Eagles. The UNIX was a
sun 3/280 on another subnet with 800 MB CDC Drives.