MIDRANGE dot COM Mailing List Archive



Home » MIDRANGE-L » January 2013

Re: Gb Ethernet



fixed

Dan, would you then want to make sure on the STRTCP command *NO on STRIP6
value??
Also, what if your remotely going to a DNS server, would the same apply.

On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 10:27 AM, Dan Kimmel <dkimmel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

Make sure you're either fully configured for IPV6 or disable it. I've had
lots of performance problems with newer machines and IBMi versions. 6.1 and
7.1 have IPV6 enabled by default. If you aren't fully configured for IPV6
(ie an IPV6 DNS server on the machine) the IP stack spends an inordinate
amount of time trying to find the other machine. It seems that time is
spent on EVERY packet. Most of my experience is with Java applications
which always favor IPV6 unless explicitly configured to prefer IPV4. I
don't have much experience with the FTP client and server on IBMi, so this
may not actually be a factor. But it's something to check.

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:
midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:44 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Gb Ethernet

Shouldn't I be getting a lot better throughput?

Help me out with my math. I've got an Ethernet line on 1 lpar talking to
an Ethernet line on another lpar. They both say:
Current line speed . . . . . . . . : 1G
Current duplex . . . . . . . . . . : *FULL

Target system:
Resource Type
CMB03 268C
LIN04 6B26
Source system:
CMB30 181C
LIN06 181C
CMN242 181C

They are both on our same 10.17.6 subnet.

I FTP'd a sizeable file and got these results:

Size, in bytes, of save file: 13,458,505,728
Seconds to perform transmission: 2,222
Bytes/sec: 6,056,933.271
bits/byte: 8
bits/second: 48,455,466.167
Gb/bits: 0.000000001
Gb/sec: 0.048455466

iNav's Management central says lan utilization was minimal.
iNav's says percent busy of disk was minimal. (currently 2-7%) Source
system has 64 disk arms.
Target system is a guest on the source. It has 6 equal "arms".

Shouldn't I be getting a lot better throughput? After all, 0.05 is not
1Gb.

I am not interested in any virtual ethernet backplane type solution due to
some H/A concerns.


Rob Berendt
--
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1
Group Dekko
Dept 1600
Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
6928N 400E
Kendallville, IN 46755
http://www.dekko.com

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.



--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.







Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot COM and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available here. If you have questions about this, please contact