Without a lot more information about your particular setup, if is difficult to say if your performance is good or bad. If you are using a CAD 5 crossover cable between your Mac G5 and the Snap Server, with tuned windows for maximum size, running 100 mb full duplex, then yes your performance stinks. If you are on a typical network, with hubs or switches, running half duplex 10 mb ethernet, standard window size, long cable runs with non-certified CAD 4 cable, and occasional other random traffic present (think printers running Appletalk in the background), then your reported numbers are quite good. What are you comparing to, when you believe your throughput stinks. The real test, is how much are you willing to spend to gain a few extra seconds, and what is that worth in opportunity costs. Are you most likley to be typing text, and doing occasional saves, or are you doing intractive database searches that require hugh blocks of data to be send synchronously.
You may want to examine each inch of the path to determine where or if you want to make a change.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by seanwg
Hi Guys,
I succesfully upgraded a Snap 1000 to 120gb; however, the performance just stinks.. I am seeing about 1.5 MB/s storage rate? Any ideas?
This with NFS , on Mac os X...
Even FTP'ing into the box, I'm seeing
227 Entering Passive Mode (10,0,1,99,4,6).
125 Data connection already open; transfer starting.
100% |*************************************| 20480 KB 1.71 MB/s 00:00 ETA
226 Closing data connection. Requested file action successful.
20971520 bytes sent in 00:11 (1.70 MB/s)
ftp>
Which, is just terrible?
|