[geeks] Well, THAT was a setback

[Phil Stracchino]

On 01/19/10 08:14, gsm at mendelson.com wrote:
> What I'm NOT doing is mixing bits and bytes. The original quote was
> 40megaBYTES per second for the tape drive, so I converted my figures
> into bytes. 

Yup, I saw that.

> A single bit serial link (e.g. 100BaseT) has a RAW bit rate of 100 megaBYTES

I'm pretty certain you meant megaBITS there.  :)

> per second, or 12.5 megaBYTES. So if I said I was seeing 3-4 megaBYTES per
> second throughput, that translates to 24 to 32 megaBITS per second,
> sustained rate.

Right.  That seems to me to be very surprisingly slow for a switched
100Mbit network.

Now, if you're on a *hub* rather than a switch, that kind of throughput
would be rather more understandable.  It would still be bad, but it'd be
a more reasonable magnitude of bad - on the order of half the expected
real-world throughput instead of a third.  My experience is that on any
small switched 100Mbit network with relatively modern clients (which is
to say, hardware dating from about 1997 or newer), if you can't push at
least 90Mbit (or close to 90Mbit) across the network under real-world
conditions, something is wrong with the network.  If you can't push over
50Mbit across it, something is BADLY wrong with the network.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino, CDK#2     DoD#299792458     ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355
  alaric at caerllewys.net   alaric at metrocast.net   phil at co.ordinate.org
         Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater
                 It's not the years, it's the mileage.