[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[sailer@bnl.gov: Network Throughput]



----- Forwarded message from Tim Sailer <sailer@bnl.gov> -----

>From tps  Wed Jan  3 17:38:17 2001
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001 17:37:56 -0500
From: Tim Sailer <sailer@bnl.gov>
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Network Throughput
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
Resent-Message-ID: <AQ_-eD.A.YgB.Vn6U6@murphy>
Resent-From: debian-user@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/125696
X-Loop: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Bcc:
Resent-Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001 17:38:17 -0500

I have a Debian box with 2 NICs. Both 100Meg, running in full duplex. This
machine is running as a ftp proxy. As part of the traffic going through the
box, some streams have 1000k window size for a certain reason. How do
I tune the NICs to handle the streams better? There are ways of doing this
on other OSs. Right now, the box only does about 1.8Mb when it should be doing
80+Mb.

Thanks,
Tim

PS: This is really something to do with the window size and WAN latency.
The box does well when traffic goes in one NIC and out the other, as long
as the end point is local When it hits the WAN, it all dies. Traffic not
going through the box just flies rignt along.

-- 
Tim Sailer <sailer@bnl.gov> Cyber Security Operations
Brookhaven National Laboratory  (631) 344-3001


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org 
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
   >> Tim Sailer (at home)             ><  Coastal Internet, Inc.          <<
   >> Network and Systems Operations   ><  PO Box 671                      <<
   >> http://www.buoy.com              ><  Ridge, NY 11961                 <<
   >> tps@unslept.com/tps@buoy.com     ><  (631) 476-3031                  <<
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<



Reply to: