search for: 220mb

Assuming in a secure and trusted env, we want to get the maximum transfer speed without the overhead from ssh. Thanks. Fred -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20121213/654f543f/attachment-0001.html>

...24 2881908 5139152 36% / /dev/sda1 15522 1662 13059 11% /boot /dev/sdb1 8605584 5633920 2527472 69% /content /dev/sdc1 8605584 3261664 4899728 40% /logs Connection to downtown1 closed. there's plenty of memory free (512MB total, 220MB free) and cpu load is low (0.05 up to around 0.10). system is slackware 7.1.0. using openssl 0.9.5a. using openssh 2.3.0p1 on both ends of the connection with publickey authentication. using openssh 2.1.1 (openssl 0.9.5a) with password authentication to the same server, everything works normally...

...r got a hang -- and that's the part I'm thinking might be nfs related, since I've seen several issues with nfs not working the same way as a local fs. I usually use smbfs -- in my usage, it's faster and I usually have fewer compatibility problems. (faster meaning ~ Reads~162MB/s, W~220MB/s, though i've seen explorer hit over 400MB/s). (using a 10Gb link). But the above testing shows some unexplained behaviors out of rsync that sure look like a bug. Good test case! :-)

...via 2 x 1GbE Ethernet. CentOS 6.8 gives me full read performance on raw iSCSI devices /dev/sdxx at 115MB/s. CentOS 7.2 allows only 90-100MB/s, read performance varies and is not stable like for 6.8 the multipath performance on 7.2 is even worse. CentOS 6.8 allows to read a full speed and stable 220MB/s. CentOS 7.2 maximum was 140MB/s after i disabled readahead for multipath devices in tuned. btw. i tried many recommended optimizations in 7.2, but i am not getting the raw iSCSI read performance than on 6.8, and on 6.8 i had no special tuning f?r iSCSI. mtu 9000 is set and verified for both OS...

Hi, I have a problem when using R1.7.0. I have a very large dataset, but I also have access to 24GB RAM on a super-computer. Nevertheless, when using the "lme"-function I get the error message Error: cannot allocate vector of size 224295 Kb As I understand it, the default is that there is no memory-limit in R other than machine resources, but somehow R does not get acces to the

...load. I've found that when it does work the speeds are very fast - was getting around 1.4 - 1.6GB/s with 16 threads on 40gbit/s QDR link. 2. volume transport set to tcp works over IPoIB interface, but i've not managed to get a good level of performance with real data. I was maxing about 220MB/s with a single thread and around 550MB/s with 12 or more threads. Benchmarking with a huge file made from /dev/zero gives me around 800-900MB/s with multiple threads and around 750MB/s single thread. Not sure why would glusterfs has a good level of performance when reading from RAM but is only wor...

...6.9 - Kernel : 4.12.9 - GlusterFS : 3.10.5 - tcmu-runner : 1.2.0 - iscsi-initiator-utils : 6.2.0.873 and these are results from test. 1st. FILEIO on FUSE mounted - 333MB/sec 2nd. glfs user backstore - 140MB/sec 3rd. FILEIO on FUSE mounted with tgtd - 235MB/sec 4th. glfs user backstore with tgtd - 220MB/sec 5th. FILEIO on FUSE mounted (iSER) - 643MB/sec 6th. glfs user backstore (iSER) - 149MB/sec 7th. FILEIO on FUSE mounted with tgtd (iSER) - 677MB/sec 8th. glfs user backstore with tgtd(iSER) - 535MB/sec Every tests were done with dd command. As shown above, 6th test showed similar results in 2...

...eaks of 20-25 to deep troughs of 2-3MB/s. Writing to an NFS share from a VM is still fine, though - in-VM NFS performance equals that of a "raw" Ubuntu install. Furthermore, I have a few hosts with local SSDs meant for database storage. These Pliant SSDs with on-paper sustained writes of 220MB/s now look like a nightmare purchase - I get only 20-25MB/s when writing to them from a VM. (And host performance is not great either - 40-50. Ubuntu: 150MB/s) The rather substantial drop as soon as I test iSCSI from a XCP host leads me to think that something is amiss with the current XCP kernel...

GigE wasn''t giving me the performance I had hoped for so I spring for some 10Gbe cards. So what am I doing wrong. My setup is a Dell 2950 without a raid controller, just a SAS6 card. The setup is as such : mirror rpool (boot) SAS 10K raidz SSD 467 GB on 3 Samsung 256 MLC SSD (220MB/s each) to create the raidz I did a simple zpool create raidz SSD c1xxxxx c1xxxxxx c1xxxxx. I have a single 10GBe card with a single IP on it. I created a NFS filesystem for vmware by using : zfs create SSD/vmware . I had to set permissoins for Vmware anon=0, but thats it. Below is what zpoo...

Trying to set up UEFI Syslinux boot on an ArchLinux USB 4GB stick. - Host system: 64-bit Ubuntu 14.10 on 56 GB hard drive - Hardware: ASUS P8H77-I, Bios v1101, i7-3770 at 3.40 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 - ArchLinux Instructions followed: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Syslinux#UEFI_Systems > ? ? 2. UEFI Systems > 2.2 Installation - Arch syslinux v.6.03 196352 Oct 13 22:25 /usr/sbin/syslinux

First off, I'm sorry for sending so many messages to the list-serv. Hopefully this will be my last for a while! I was going to use my WRT54G router as a small Asterisk box, but I forgot that I had a spare eMachines computer (Intel Celeron 633 MHz, 20GB HD, 64mb RAM). Will this machine work OK for a very simple dedicated home Asterisk box? Also, what is easiest linux distribution to use and

...ector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B Partition Table: gpt Disk Flags: Number Start End Size File system Name ? ? Flags 1 17.4kB 537MB 537MB fat32 EFI System ? ? boot, esp 2 537MB 3787MB 3251MB ext2 Linux filesystem 3 3787MB 4007MB 220MB linux-swap(v1) Linux swap Thanks, ?-- Alex?

...the part I'm thinking might be nfs > related, since I've seen several issues with nfs not > working the same way as a local fs. > > I usually use smbfs -- in my usage, it's faster and I > usually have fewer compatibility problems. > (faster meaning ~ Reads~162MB/s, W~220MB/s, > though i've seen explorer hit over 400MB/s). > (using a 10Gb link). > > But the above testing shows some unexplained behaviors > out of rsync that sure look like a bug. > > Good test case! > :-) > > > > > > > > > > -- ~*-,...

...e: gpt > Disk Flags:? > > Number ?Start ? End ? ? Size ? ?File system ? ? Name ? ? ? ? ? > ? ?Flags > ?1 ? ? ?17.4kB ?537MB ? 537MB ? fat32 ? ? ? ? ? EFI System ? ? > ? ?boot, esp > ?2 ? ? ?537MB ? 3787MB ?3251MB ?ext2 ? ? ? ? ? ?Linux filesystem > ?3 ? ? ?3787MB ?4007MB ?220MB ? linux-swap(v1) ?Linux swap > > Thanks, > ?-- Alex? > > For more info about c32 library modules, see: http://www.syslinux.org/wiki/index.php/Library_modules Regards, Ady.

Hello everyone, It''s a particularly slow Friday afternoon here, so time to try stuff out... I''ve just installed Instant Rails on a USB key, thinking it would be a great way of showing off Rails in general, giving a progress update to customers, trying out ideas, and generally all the other benefits that come from having a completely portable environment. However, the 168Mb of

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12732 Bug ID: 12732 Summary: hard links can cause rsync to block or to silently skip files Product: rsync Version: 3.1.2 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee:

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

I have two identical servers. The only difference is that the first one has Maxtor 250G drives and the second one has Seagate 320G drives. OS: CentOS-4.4 (fully patched) CPU: dual Opteron 280 Memory: 16GB Raid card: 3ware 9550Sx-8LP Raid volume: 4-disk Raid 5 with NCQ and Write Cache enabled On the first server I have decent performance. Nothing spectacular, but good enough. The second one

G''day, all, So, I''ve decided to migrate my home server from Linux+swRAID+LVM to Solaris+ZFS, because it seems to hold much better promise for data integrity, which is my primary concern. However, naturally, I decided to do some benchmarks in the process, and I don''t understand why the results are what they are. I though I had a reasonable understanding of ZFS, but now

Hello, I have an project running on a dedicated server: Debian, P4 CPU 3.00GHz, 1GB RAM, ruby 1.8.4 (2005-12-24) [x86_64-linux], rails (1.0.0), activerecord (1.13.2) lighttpd-1.4.10 + fastcgi + mysql 5.0 7 dispatchers. The project is a game, so a typical user would visit 100+ pages. When the server is busiest, it gets 35-40k requests/hour. For some misterious reason after a number of hours the