Re: Slow NFS or slow NIC?
On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:56:27PM +0100, Konrad Mierendorff wrote:
> Carel Fellinger wrote:
> > Okee, so there is more overhead. So more bytes have to be transfered.
> > But almost doubling it seems a bit overdone, doesn't it. So I'm still
>
> Check the CPU-usage to get this answered.
Thought I did, but as it turns out I've been looking to the wrong cpu!
I should have monitored the 486 ofcourse, and this one uses some 30%
of its cpu time:( Add the measured throughput and the 8% cpu time on
the server and all time is accounted for. So the remedi is a better NIC,
one that is capable of putting the bytes directly in the kernel buffers.
Helas, that's momentary out of the question. Besides, I rather spend the
bucks on an extra box to serve as a firewall. So my *kids* have to live
with slower disk access working on ego, or with slower graphics using
ego as an X-terminal. *My* machine is just fine:)
Thanks to all for the pointers to make up for my sleep deprived,
non-functioning brain again.
--
groetjes, carel
Reply to: