From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.networking

On 27/11/2020 17.21, William Unruh wrote:

On 2020-11-26, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> wrote:

On Wed, 2020-11-25, Carlos E.R. wrote:

On 25/11/2020 21.26, Harold Johanssen wrote:

...

My intent was, when posing this question, to get feedback on the
performance of different network filesystems with the networking
limitations that I described, from anybody who has had experience with >>>> comparable setups. This is an all-Linux network.

Depends on what the actual load your software exerts. Large files? Small >>> files? Random r/w access? That's the worst.

But (I think) it could also be the scenario where you gain the most by
offloading the actual disk I/O to another machine, which perhaps has
disks with better random access, and more cache.

network speeds are (always?) slower than disk bus access speeds. Thus i
wold expect [ local<-> network<->remote computer <-> disk] to be slower than [local computer <-> disk.]

Hum.

Server side has fast SSD disk and gigabyte Ethernet (let's be modest,
not fibre). Client side is laptop with rotating rust disk, could be 5400
rpm.

In this case, NFS may have faster access speed :-D
--
Cheers, Carlos.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.networking

On 28/11/2020 07:37, Johann Beretta wrote:

On 11/26/20 12:22 AM, David Brown wrote:

Channel bundling can help on a good network setup, but it's unlikely to
help if he has cheapo or ancient switches, as he must have, since he is
on 100 Mb - they won't get enough parallel port-to-port transfers to
give significant improvements in throughput. (And if he has hubs,
rather than switches, it certainly won't help.)

It's a lot easier to upgrade a switch than to upgrade the wires in the
walls. One can have a modern switch and old wiring. I'd not be so sure
the person has "ancient" switches.

I think that sort of thing varies, and I'd be sceptical of guessing
which is most likely. Only the OP can tell us what applies in his case.
But I'd be surprised to find many cases where you have old wiring that
can't be replaced, good new switches that support channel bundling, and
where you have multiple old lines that can be used for bundling.

It's also worth noting that old wires can often support higher speeds.
Ethernet cables are rated for a particular speed and length - usually
110m. Very often, you have much shorter cables than 110m, and these can sometimes (but not always) support higher speeds than their rating might suggest. You might have to be careful about details, such as minimising
the length of the final segment (the bit from the socket in the wall to
the computer in the office).

Again, we know very little about the OP's setup.

The odds of encountering someone with a hub is almost nil. I remember
when the first consumer switches hit the market and that was more than
20 years ago.

I actually kept a couple of old hubs around for some kinds of testing -
they could be quite handy when trying to monitor the traffic of a
particular system. (You put the hub between the device and the rest of
the network, then you can have a laptop with wireshark listening to all
the traffic.) A managed switch set up with a mirror port does the job
too, but the hubs I had were going free!

I suspect that in older networks, you might still find a few hubs -
equipment like this rarely gets replaced unless there is a problem, and
just like old wiring, there is often old equipment still in use.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2