Luis. Good question! I should have included that:

Line description . . . . . . . . . : ETHLINE
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : *BASIC
Category of line . . . . . . . . . : *ELAN
Resource name . . . . . . . . . . : CMN05
Online at IPL . . . . . . . . . . : *YES
Vary on wait . . . . . . . . . . . : *NOWAIT
Network controller . . . . . . . . : ETHLINET
Local adapter address . . . . . . : 00096B6B04D1
Exchange identifier . . . . . . . : 05616400
Ethernet standard . . . . . . . . : *ALL
Line speed . . . . . . . . . . . . : *AUTO
Current line speed . . . . . . . . : 100M
Duplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : *AUTO
Current duplex . . . . . . . . . . : *FULL
Maximum frame size . . . . . . . . : 1496
Maximum controllers . . . . . . . : 40

So even through the LAN is a 100M and the VLAN is 1G, the VLAN is only 2 (or so) times faster. Interesting.

Pete


Luis Colorado wrote:
So, what was the line speed for the physical LAN connection?

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pete Helgren
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:09 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: Virtual Ethernet - Part II

Scott,

Here is what I got at a customer who has a "relatively" new 520:

Line Configuration:

Line description . . . . . . . . . : VETH0
Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : *BASIC
Category of line . . . . . . . . . : *ELAN
Resource name . . . . . . . . . . : CMN03
Online at IPL . . . . . . . . . . : *YES Vary on wait . . . . . . . . . . . : *NOWAIT
Network controller . . . . . . . . : VETH0NET
Local adapter address . . . . . . : CEF3D0003002
Exchange identifier . . . . . . . : 056ADB0F
Ethernet standard . . . . . . . . : *ALL
Line speed . . . . . . . . . . . . : 1G
Current line speed . . . . . . . . : 1G
Duplex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : *FULL
Current duplex . . . . . . . . . . : *FULL
Maximum frame size . . . . . . . . : 8996 Maximum controllers . . . . . . . : 40

I tried to find a big enough file to approximate what you are doing:

FTP over VLAN:

small file:
48362688 bytes transferred in 1.627 seconds. Transfer rate 29725.926 KB/sec
big file
5515090944 bytes transferred in 294.812 seconds. Transfer rate 18707.176

FTP over network

small file
48362688 bytes transferred in 5.215 seconds. Transfer rate 9274.044 KB/sec.
big file
5515090944 bytes transferred in 599.517 seconds. Transfer rate 9199.229

Hope that is of some use.

Pete Helgren



Ingvaldson, Scott wrote:
I'm having a hard time believing that disk is the bottleneck here. That
would make the VLAN run at the same speed as the network, not slower.
And I wouldn't be able to save this 60 GB library to a save file in
under 3 minutes.
My apples to apples comparison run today:

FTP over VLAN: 59521118976 bytes transferred in 4777.693 seconds.
Transfer rate 12458.129 KB/sec.

FTP over network: 59521118976 bytes transferred in 3808.596 seconds.
Transfer rate 15628.102 KB/sec.

Does anyone have any insight into the VLAN configuration or at least
some real world performance numbers?

Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest


-----Original Message-----
From: Luis Colorado [mailto:LuisC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:25 AM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Virtual Ethernet - Part II

Well, if you think about it, 21577 Kbytes/sec is roughly equivalent to
169 Mbits/sec, meaning that your transfers through the network were
using less than 10% of your 2Gb/sec network. Years ago, with 10Mbit/sec
and 100Mbit/sec network speeds, clearly the bottleneck was the network.
However, with your 2Gb/sec connections, your bottleneck is now your
system (more specifically, your disk).

So, bottom line (and I don't know much about VLAN optimization), I would
say that this is as good as it gets.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ingvaldson, Scott
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:00 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Virtual Ethernet - Part II

OK, the VLAN appears to be working as designed but I still have some
questions.
The speed of our Anynet transfers has increased by a factor 4 - 8.
Transfers that were taking 3 - 4 hours now complete in 30 - 45 minutes.
As long as I do them one at a time. If I do more than one at a time
they slow considerably.
FTP transfers take the same amount of time using the VLAN as they did
running over the network. Reported transfer rates are in the range of
12000 - 14000 KB/sec. Strangely enough, I was able to hit 21577 KB/sec.
on a 2 GB transfer, not using the VLAN, doing an FTP to a Network
Server!
An iNav monitor shows the VLAN utilization to be 8 - 10% when doing FTP
and up to 20% for SAVRSTxxx commands. But if I run two simultaneous
SAVRSTxxx transfers the utilization drops to 15%, even if the transfers
are initiated from different LPARs.
Is there some tuning that can be done to the VLAN or is this as good as
it gets?
Regards,
Scott Ingvaldson
Senior IBM Support Specialist
Fiserv Midwest
--
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 thread ...

Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 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].