On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 10:55:55AM -0400, Il Neofita wrote:
> Any Idea? What I should check
> 
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Il Neofita <asteriskmail AT gmail DOT com> 
> wrote:
> > Thank you for all the replies
> > The  bottleneck is the network or at lest something in the network
> > and yes I have an autoloader LTO4
> >
> > If I use NC with a file of 10M I need 8 seconds to transfer
> > If I use scp I need around 2 seconds
> >
> > The same file without compression

it sounds very strange, the scp should be slower (or at best same
speed) as it needs additional step of encrypting data. 

It could only be faster if it is (maybe by default) doing ssh
compression of data on the fly, so it has less data to transfer.

Also, are you sure you're correctly droping caches before each test ?

Because if you run nc test first, and scp seconds, scp will have
advantage of not having to access disk at all to read the file (as it
will probably be in cache).

Can you show exact commands and outputs you get to conduct those
tests (use script(1) or something to capture it) ?

you could also try using iperf(1) to measure network bandwidth
between SD and FD.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
Bacula-users AT lists.sourceforge DOT net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users