Whoa! Good afternoon! I realize the "wire speed" of those interfaces makes that theorhetically possible.... HOWEVER! When you say you see those numbers EVERY DAY on a real network, I have to ask. No, Really. HOW do you see those numbers? What kind of file transport are you doing? How large are your transports. What protocol are you using? If you're really pushing 120 MegaBYTES per second across glass gigabit ethernet, there's very little reason in the industry to have Fibre Channel SANs. And, if you are, I'll happily study at the feet of the master. Doing all kinds of file transfers, I normally see the numbers I priorly quoted...EVERY DAY. I often use iometer to benchtest my numbers (runs on Linux AND Windows and SPARC) so I can standardize my testing model. <shrug> My understand of encryption was that it ends up using padded bits and ate up a fair amount of overhead AND bandwidth. I'll happily read anything you put before me to correct my understandings. Ted Letofsky Linux newbie, and apparent clueless network user <grin> -----Original Message----- From: Matthew S. Hallacy [mailto:poptix at poptix.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2005 8:52 PM To: Ted S. Letofsky Cc: 'Randy Clarksean'; tclug-list at mn-linux.org Subject: RE: [tclug-list] Data Transfer Speeds - LAN On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 10:59 -0500, Ted S. Letofsky wrote: > Hi Randy > > The WIRE speed of a 10bT NIC is approximately 1 MB / Second The WIRE > speed of a 100bT NIC is approximately 10 MB / Second The WIRE speed of > a 1000bT NIC is approximately 100 MB / Second > > In reality, you can get all of 1MB / Second in 10bT > You can get, (IF YOU PUSH HARD) about 6.5MB /Second in 100bT You can > get, (IF YOU PUSH REALLY HARD) about 37 MB Second in 1000bT. > What kind of CRACK are you smoking? 10mbit ethernet will move 1.2MB/s, 100mbit ethernet will move 12MB/s, and 1000mbit ethernet/fiber will move 120MB/s. There is no 'push really hard'. These are real numbers that I see *every day* on a real network, there is no 'i get a better signal with this monster cable gold plated ethernet so my network goes faster' when it comes to ethernet, it's either there (full speed) or it isn't (framing errors and collisions aside). [snip mostly correct jumbo frames info] > Also, as is obvious, you're likely going to get WAY better performance > across NFS or (god help you) SAMBA, than you will over SSH, due to > encryption taking up lots of bandwidth. > The overhead with SSH is CPU, the actual encryption data isn't much larger than the original unencrypted data.