search for: 60mb

...ll be processed (except UEFI only assets). - live and stable in production since 2006 on up to 10 locations. The new systen has following requirements: - get rid of .nbi boot (plus startrom.0) - 2x1Gbit (later on 10 Gbit) backbone, 1Gbit for the clients - the "standard" .iso will grow to 60MB or more - switch from TFTP to HTTP (at least for the .isos) - must be live for production at all locations at the 1st of April 2014 - old (?) problems with some Dell assets with Broadcom Nics must be fixed (syslinux version 4.10) - adaptable to usb-boot and multibootCD - UEFI boot (for production u...

Hello list, please spend a minute considering these facts and maybe there is something to improve: 1) VIA Eden based board can write AES256 encrypted information on HDD at > 60MB/s 2) iperf shows NIC speed 69MB/s 3) openssl tests have even better results 4) openssh can transfer AES256 encrypted information at < 27MB/s (and worse with HDD encryption) It is better with openssh 5.x, than 4.6, but still I see no reason why results are so bad... Please, could someone expla...

Hi, On a particular input file, FLAC (testing with current git) greatly inflates its output if I encode at level 7, which enables --exhaustive-model-search. The source is a 24-bit WAV file of about 60MB; flac -6 encodes this to a 43MB FLAC file, but flac -7 produces a 9.1GB (!) file. The enormous file does seem to be perfectly valid, FWIW -- it (eventually) decodes to a WAV that's identical to the source file. The copyright on the offending file belongs to the band that uploaded it to our...

I was transferring a file from a (slow) smbd server running on some NAS. The transfer speed is only 1MB/s but the NAS uses 100% CPU. Normally the NAS can handle 60MB/s download (from the NAS). Could it be that the connection uses encryption or something? What could be causing this slow speed? I have internet download speeds over this same connection surpassing 5MB/s. I cannot imagine why something like this would be so slow.

...am trying to install the Codeweavers version of wine (pre-release 2) and I am having problems. When I try to install (using rpm), I get the message "installing package codeweavers-wine-20010112-1 needs 7Mb on the / filesystem". My / filesystem is not overly large, but I still have approx 60Mb available on /. Is the error stating that the install requires 7Mb on /, or it needs 7Mb more than what I have available? Also, why is it wanting to install at the / level and not in a somewhat less dangerous partition? The other filesystems have plenty of room available. Has anyone else seen this...

...c.com@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba- > bounces+marc_kaplan=adaptec.com@lists.samba.org] On Behalf Of Alexander > Lazarevich > Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:36 AM > To: samba@lists.samba.org > Subject: [Samba] samba 3 performance > > Does anyone succesfully get more than 60MB/sec sequential throughput, > WITHOUT jumbo frames, with the following configuration: > > samba 3 on RedHat linux server > windows XP Pro workstations > GigE NIC's and GigE switches > > Assuming all the disks/buses on the server and client ends are capable of > those sp...

Hi all, I would like to install/test CentOS 7.X as a hostap for my home. I am thinking to use an Alfa (http://www.alfa.com.tw) usb wireless adapter or TP-Link. BUt there is not much information in Alfa's or TP-Link's web sites about which of them can run as a HostAP. If I can find any adapter that supports ac with a throughput of 150 Mbps/300Mbps, it would be great. Any recommendation?

...p that way instead, and it works as expected though it seems to perform less well in some admittedly simple tests using dd with ''oflag=direct'' set. The dom0 can write at about 110MB/s sustained, but if the domU makes the iSCSI connection instead it''s doing well to manage 60MB/s. So I''m looking to the wisdom of the list, is it crazy to set things up one way or the other, or are they both an OK approach? It seems like having the dom0 handle the iSCSI connection is a big win performance-wise, but perhaps that comes at a big negative cost? Having the domU make t...

...drivers made at least about 30MB/s reading and writing sequentially, but for reading and writing randomly, it was also only lousy 1.5MB/s. Via network, over the GigaBit line, with the xensource drivers, the speed was about 78 MB/s. The Windows system was a XP SP2. hdparm on the dom0 gives about 60MB/s. The network test was an ftp transfer, just downloading a 500MB file, without writing it to disk, writing to nul. The same in the dom0, writing the file to /dev/null gave me 112MB/s. So I am wondering, what are the expected speed gains for the gplpv drivers? Is the performance of the drivers b...

...and higher Downloading a large file from internet and directly to the gluster: 250-300mb/s Now same test without Stripe but with sharding. This results are same when I set shard size 4MB or 32MB. (Again 2x Replica here) Dd performance: 70mb/s Download directly to the gluster performance : 60mb/s Now, If we do this test twice at the same time (two dd or two doewnload at the same time) it goes below 25/mb each or slower. I thought sharding is at least equal or a little slower (maybe?) but these results are terribly slow. I tried tuning (cache, window-size etc..). Nothing helps....

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>

...nd 2 have xp domains with slow network performance. Doing most of the testing on a xen system that currently is not in production. Running xen 4.0 with 2.6.32 kernel from lenny backports. Have xp service pack3 freshly installed with no updates. Installed gplpv gplpv_XP_0.11.0.213.msi hdtack gives 60mb/sec which is good iperf gives ~15Mbits/sec Without gplpv is about hte same. A linux pv domu gives 686Mbits/sec Shows it as using Xen Net Device Driver. Things that I have tried that did not help: Disable Checksum Offload. Disable Large Send Offload. Disable Scatter/Gather. Adding /patchptr to boo...

...a memory monitoring program such as htop, and then executing the following code while looking at how much memory is being used by the system library(parallel) seconds <- 5 N <- 100000 result.list <- mclapply(1:N, function(i)Sys.sleep(1/N*seconds)) On my system, memory usage goes up about 60MB on this example. But it does not go up at all if I change mclapply to lapply. Is this a bug? For a more detailed discussion with a figure that shows that the memory overhead is linear in N, please see https://github.com/tdhock/mclapply-memory > sessionInfo() R version 3.2.2 (2015-08-14) Platfo...

...er/interface/bus (etc) speed. My own system has a habit of setting usb2.0 interface to 1.1-speeds for example. With (hopefully) bootable USB3.0 interfaces coming soon, a MEMDISK combined with a sufficient sized disk image (say 170MB Parted Magic cd-image file) would show loading speeds between 60MB and 500MB if a suitable device (USB3.0 Flash Drive or USB3.0-connected SSD) is used. Unfortunately I'd have no idea how to take compression (gzip/zip) into account, it can alter numbers significantly. perhaps something like this: "loaded/copied/read nnnn MB in tttt seconds (average spe...

Hello all, I've been writing a basic encoder using libFLAC++. It seems to work fine, as in the resultant file is playable in any FLAC compatible player, however the compression ratio is very small - the main example being a 60MB file compressing to 54MB, i guess there's an option i've missed, but i cannot track it down. I was hoping someone could point it out for me: FLAC::Encoder::File flac; void setup() { FLAC__FileEncoderState state; flac.set_filename(output_filename.c_str()); flac.set_channels (2); flac...

...w dropping to less than the size of a frame at any time. I assume this is windows client-side behavior, I'm not even sure if it's samba-specific at all, but I don't have any windows file server that I expect would be able to push 50MB/s consistently to test against. I get close to 60MB/s using a CIFS mount locally on the samba server. Any suggestions or recommendations would be appreciated. -Steve

...sfer rate of about 10MB/s (again for read and write) with 3 files it is even around 11MB/s. Why i can't reach this transfer rate with just one file? It is the same from both windows pc. I benchmarked my network around 11.5MB/s are reached using netio (Win-Win,Win-Debian). The HDDs are reaching 60MB/s with hdparm -t /dev/sd? I search for such an issue, but didn't find something useful. I looked into the documentation, but didn't find some hints for that issue. How can i find the bootleneck in the system? Best reguards, Michael

...recently updates our samba addc's to 4.18.6 (from 4.7.7). We use roaming profile and a login script which queries active shares and printers on the logon servers. Since the update i see a lot of rpcd_winreg processes if an user logs on. It are around 40 of these processes each consuming around 60MB. The servers have 1-2GB of ram assigned so they start swapping everytime an user logs on. The processes disappear after 1-2 Minutes and the free memory goes back from 50MB to ~1.2GB (on an 2GB server). Is there a way to limit the number of workers so i can avoid swapping? So far i found "prefo...

...t about 5-20MB/s (totally) and I know that a single drive will handle that, but I'm unsure if the HPT 454 is really stable in FreeBSD. We'll be running this on a 4.8 installation. Now to my questions... Is the HPT 454 card & driver production stable? Do you think that it will handle 60MB/s (read)? Has anyone had a drive failure with this card and successfully replaced it while the system was running or am I placing my hopes too high?

...and higher Downloading a large file from internet and directly to the gluster: 250-300mb/s Now same test without Stripe but with sharding. This results are same when I set shard size 4MB or 32MB. (Again 2x Replica here) Dd performance: 70mb/s Download directly to the gluster performance : 60mb/s Now, If we do this test twice at the same time (two dd or two doewnload at the same time) it goes below 25/mb each or slower. I thought sharding is at least equal or a little slower (maybe?) but these results are terribly slow. I tried tuning (cache, window-size etc..). Nothing helps....