Re: Gb Ethernet

[Jack Kingsley <iseriesflorida@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.