×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
Hello Larry,
Am 29.09.2021 um 20:15 schrieb Larry DrFranken Bolhuis <midrange@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Not necessarily in this order:
-Bigger buffers.
This helps the most!
-Lower Latency.
-Faster connection.
Nothing one can easily set via OS parameters. ;-)
Allow me to add "negligible packet loss".
-Bigger packets. e.g. Jumbo Packets. BUT These will not help if they can't get all the way between systems without getting fragmented.
(L2-)Switches don't fragment. Only routers (or L3-Switches doing routing) do. You usually can't get more than 1500 Bytes across the internet.
-Sufficient system resources on both sides.
Isn't it safe to generally assume this is given with todays systems? (FTP binary transfers easily push a 150's CPU to 100%, and the 10M 2713 isn't even the limit. ;-) )
On that same network our Cybernetics devices managed 8Gbps but that's iSCSI not FTP.
FTP is a protocol for transferring bulk data as fast as possible, in one stream. No chopping and matching storage blocks and network packets needed. Nothing can beat FTP in terms of sheer speed. :-) But it's not particularly firewall-friendly, and usually unencrypted. Thus my choice for LAN transfers. :-)
:wq! PoC
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.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 on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
