[NTLUG:Discuss] File transfer speeds

[Courtney Grimland]

Well, I downloaded, unpacked, compiled, and installed pure-ftpd on the
Linux box (which I like, by the way - it's simple, and perfect for small
LAN setups).

Using the Win98 CLI ftp client, I x-ferred a 700+MB file to the Linux
box, with an overall rate of 1.37 MB/s (megabytes).

Using Max-FTP (Windows FTP client), I x-ferred the same file, and got an
overall rate of 492 KB/s (kilobytes).

Both of those are a heck of a lot faster than the scp file transfer, but
still not what I would expect from a network with no other traffic and
decent (I think?) hardware (Linksys Etherfast 10/100 PCI ethernet cards on each
system, with a TRENDnet 10/100 switch in the middle).  I guess that's
about as good as I'm gonna get with this setup.  I wish I knew more
about networking, then maybe I could figure out how to squeeze every
last bit of throughput here without buying more expensive hardware.  

Thanks for everyone's advice.

P.S. I'll be at the Slashdot meetup in a few weeks, so maybe I'll meet
some of ya'll there (I'm registered as g1zmo).

On Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:09:14 -0500
Courtney Grimland <cgrimland at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Pinging from 192.168.0.4 (Linux box) to 192.168.0.2 (Win98 box) I get:
> 
> bash-2.05a# ping 192.168.0.2
> PING 192.168.0.2 (192.168.0.2): 56 octets data
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=0.4 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=0.2 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=6 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=7 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 64 octets from 192.168.0.2: icmp_seq=8 ttl=128 time=0.3 ms
> 
> --- 192.168.0.2 ping statistics ---
> 9 packets transmitted, 9 packets received, 0% packet loss
> round-trip min/avg/max = 0.2/0.3/0.4 ms
> bash-2.05a# 
> 
> 
> I guess there's just a lot of overhead involved in the
> encryption/decryption process.  A lot more than I would have thought.
> 
> What FTP servers are out there, and what would be an appropriate one
> for me to set up on the Linux box?
> 
> 
> On Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:12:50 -0400
> rob apodaca <robert.apodaca at attbi.com> wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > > The revealing thing is that the
> > > file transfer was via WinSCP to the sshd daemon on the Linux box. 
> > > I realize there is overhead for the encryption/decryption, but
> > > still, the 500Kb/s seemed rather poor.  
> > 
> > I have recently started trying to use ssh for file transfer. One
> > machine running open sshd, the other running sftp (part of the open
> > ssh client package). I experience VERY slow transfers indeed...much
> > as you describe, however standard ftp transfer rates are very good.
> > If you perform a google search such as:
> > 
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=sftp+slow+transfer
> > 
> > you will see that there seems to be a problem with ssh file
> > transfers.
> > 
> > I've just started invesigating my problem so I dont have too much
> > more info to provide...perhaps someone else on the list might have
> > some??
> > 
> > So, I am thinking you may not have a hardware/wiring problem, but
> > rather a protocol problem. Perhaps try a different method of
> > measuring transfer rates...I saw some good suggestions in this
> > thread. Just out of curiosity, what kind of response time does ping
> > reveal?
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 
> 
> -- 
> Nigel: These go to eleven.
> Marty: Is it any louder?
> Nigel: Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss



-- 
I don't kill flies, but I like to mess with their minds.  I hold them
above globes.  They freak out and yell, `Whoa, I'm way too high'.