rejetto forum

speed test

rejetto · 48 · 16161

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13308
    • View Profile
wow, i didn't expect so much.
thank you mrprozac, your feedback is very appreciated.


mrprozac

  • Guest
wow, i didn't expect so much.
thank you mrprozac, your feedback is very appreciated.


Glad i could help, i enjoy using your program.
I am setting up my webserver (accidently deleted vmdisk  >:( ;D ), i'll set-up a mirror for you once everthing is done.

Kudo's to you for making such a great app


Offline r][m

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Same subject, slightly off topic.
Everyone is aware that faster processors and more efficent os (arguably) yield higher (faster)
speed test results?
On the same connection and router here, my dual core ubantu box repeatedly yields
extremely higher test results than any one of my older single cores on an older windows os.


Offline Kremlin

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 137
    • View Profile
Wouldn't that be more influenced by the newer ethernet card than the processor? OS wise, I might concur with that idea


Offline r][m

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
Wouldn't that be more influenced by the newer ethernet card than the processor? OS wise, I might concur with that idea
Not that I can tell. One of my older boxes has had the card replaced not to many months ago.
From what I see here, processor speed does appear to play a role. Not as sure about the dual
core part though, as far as on line (website) tests.


Offline bacter

  • Operator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 681
    • View Profile
There are many factors involved in possible speed of hfs, there are many bottlenecks:

HFS is not multi-threaded, so only one core is used. Look to verify at the processor load graphics: Build a filelist (~files?recursive) of a big filesystem, and you will see that processor load reaches only 50% on a dual core, one core uses 100%, on quadcore hfs can use one core at 100% and total cpu-use gets 25%.

Other differences between windows and Ubuntu machines: Most probably, your Ubuntu is a 64bit OS, and older windows would be a XP with 32 bits. This might be irrelevant to hfs, as hfs is a 32 bit application, but other OS tasks will go faster in 64 bit OS. Ubuntu needs less memory to work fine, windows needs a lot of memory (perhaps not available on older machines), and fewer available memory involves swapping: In an 2GB memory machine, ubuntu normally not even uses the swap partition, windows swaps even with 2 GB of free memory!

Things that slow down in windows:
- bad use of virtual memory (windows shuffles in and out data to and from disk even when there is enough memory available): this are a lot of disk operations.
- antivirus under windows: some of them verify data when read and written to and from files on disk. This in some cases reduce the throughput of data to less than a third of its possible value!
- network operations under windows may not be as efficient as under linux.

For internet access, network cards are rarely a bottleneck: Even the oldest cards are 10 Mb/s, since years they are 100 Mb/s and 1 Gb/s , and very few users have intenet connections above this values (especially for outgoing traffic!),

your computer has no brain - use your own !


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13308
    • View Profile
Everyone is aware that faster processors and more efficent os (arguably) yield higher (faster)
speed test results?

you can make such assumption every time an operation is taking all available CPU.
if HFS is not taking all the available CPU core (to measure while you get the speed problem), then a faster CPU won't help.


Offline r][m

  • Tireless poster
  • ****
    • Posts: 347
    • View Profile
you can make such assumption every time an operation is taking all available CPU.
if HFS is not taking all the available CPU core (to measure while you get the speed problem), then a faster CPU won't help.
I see your point, and it stands to reason that should always be the case, but....
using one of the speed test web sites, that is the result I see.
Even more, I see some (not great) difference here, apparently, between Vista and Ubantu
(or perhaps its the browser?)
on the same computer, and its pretty consistent?



Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13308
    • View Profile
network transfers, on Windows at least, takes a lot of CPU.
with my 1.2GHz i've been able to reach 50MB/s, and couldn't get more without an upgrade.


Offline mrprozac

  • Occasional poster
  • *
    • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
    • CCSEindhoven
network transfers, on Windows at least, takes a lot of CPU.
with my 1.2GHz i've been able to reach 50MB/s, and couldn't get more without an upgrade.


I got the above mentioned speed (in the post with the same uname) on my old development machine with the following specs.
Intel Celeron 1,7 GHz
with a whoping 512 MB RAM of which 523 is in use by other apps and windows (beat that :P)
100Mb ethernet

Memory use by hfs.exe (RAM/Virtual Memory) in kB
3.684/11.244
Previous account: mprprozac (deleted due to typo)


Offline nuvolablu

  • Occasional poster
  • *
    • Posts: 61
    • View Profile
ciao,
   io dispongo di una linea internet fibra su 100 megabit simmetrica.
hfs sta girando da diverso tempo su una macchina virtuale vmware
le prestazioni non sono troppo entusiasmanti...
parlo di scarico massimo attorno ai 20megabit al secondo, aiuta molto se da lato browser si utilizzano dei programmi per il download con più thread...sono riuscito ad arrivare a 5/6 megabyte al secondo in download
per l'upload purtroppo non dispongo di un'altro collegamento ad internet a 100 megabit, quindi il massimo raggiunto è stato limitato a 8 megabit (fastweb fibra)
Spero di essere stato d'aiuto.
Saluti.
S.


Offline marbulas

  • Occasional poster
  • *
    • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
my speed of connection IPS services is :
Download : 11.59MB/s, Upload : 11.59MB/s

Can I help something for this?


Offline rejetto

  • Administrator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 13308
    • View Profile
@nuvolablu
con rammarico ti dico che probabilmente HFS non arriverà mai alle velocità di apache e simili.
punta all'usabilità anziché alle prestazioni.
se arriva a servire 20mbps in uscita mi ritengo soddisfatto, perché sono già pochi quelli che hanno tale banda in ingresso, e credo pochissimi quelli che hanno una velocità superiore a questa in uscita.

@marbulas
available results may be enough, but if you'd like to contribute with your testings, it's welcomed.


Offline m107

  • Occasional poster
  • *
    • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
I have a strange results from a test:

I did test to remote upload a 200 Mg file from my server (100Mb/k , I can Transfer files from rapidshare.com with 10MGB/s).
I tried these website:
Hotfile.com
Storage.to

The same file in Hotfile shows me ~65KB/s but in Storage.to It was ~800 KB/s  :o
Also I did test it with my linux host and the speed was same az Hotfile, 65 KB/s  ???


Offline bacter

  • Operator
  • Tireless poster
  • *****
    • Posts: 681
    • View Profile
Sorry m107, but without saying how many ms/kg hfs needs to get 1 MGB  y can't get any remote idea what is the weight (in mg) of your server .. nor what you try to say.

Perhaps 'remote upload from' means download? ¿ and then what?
your computer has no brain - use your own !