Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Cisco > Gigabit adapters in HP Proliant Server running Windows 2003

Reply
Thread Tools

Gigabit adapters in HP Proliant Server running Windows 2003

 
 
The Sabos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2007
Brian,

You are correct, it is MBytes. My initial numbers were from the network
utility from HP but the later numbers are from the Iperf stats that I
collected.



"Brian V" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>
> "The Sabos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:6ozNi.61$C2.19@trnddc02...
>> All servers are in the same VLAN.
>>
>> How does one find how much utilization between the links?
>>
>> Yes, thanks for all the information. I understand that Windows Copy
>> is very bad but we haven't tried FTP yet?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Trendkill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>>> On Oct 5, 4:10 pm, "The Sabos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> We have an 6513 Cisco router and we have some HP Proliant servers
>>>> running
>>>> Windows 2003 with gigabit adapters. Ports are set to 1000 on the
>>>> router
>>>> and the server are set to 1000/Full with flow control at auto. But
>>>> when
>>>> we do a windows copy from server to server we are only getting 230 MBps
>>>> at
>>>> the highest throughput rate. Should we be getting more throughput
>>>> than
>>>> this?
>>>>
>>>> Any suggestion would be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks in Advanced.
>>>> Eric Sabo
>>>
>>> All depends on the server, backplane, protocol, etc. Are the source
>>> and destination on different switches? Are they in the same network?
>>> How much b/w do you have across your backbone if it is being routed or
>>> pushed across switches? How much utilization do you have across those
>>> links? If all of that checks out, how fast are your drives, what is
>>> the utilization of the server itself during that transfer?
>>> Additionally, windows copy is terrible from my experience, have you
>>> tried ftp? How does that work for you?
>>>

>>

>
> Are you sure it's big "B"? Thats MegaBYTES per second. Switches are rated
> in bits (little b) per second. If it truely is bytes per second, you've
> exceeded gigabit speed (bytes X 8 = bits) 2.2mbps. Where are you getting
> your numbers from?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bod43@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-06-2007
On 6 Oct, 03:47, "The Sabos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I think I have found what the problem is, I think I need to up the size of
> the TCPWindowSize.
>
> The problem is we are trying to back up over the network and the more speed
> we get the fast it will go.
>
> Thanks for all your help and input on this issue.
>
> "Trendkill" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>
> news:(E-Mail Removed) ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 5, 8:14 pm, "The Sabos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> I figure out how to use the program.

>
> >> From my computer to the server I am getting 93.2 MB

>
> >> From a server (gigabit connect) to server (gigabit connect) - 333 MB

>
> >> With this numbers is this okay for the CISCO 6513 Router?

>
> >> I would have thought it would have been about 400-500 MB at least.

>
> >> Is there anything we can do to improve the speed? TCP windows size was
> >> 8
> >> KBytes

>
> >> "alexd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

>
> >>news:(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> >> > The Sabos wrote:

>
> >> >> We have an 6513 Cisco router and we have some HP Proliant servers
> >> >> running
> >> >> Windows 2003 with gigabit adapters. Ports are set to 1000 on the
> >> >> router
> >> >> and the server are set to 1000/Full with flow control at auto. But
> >> >> when
> >> >> we do a windows copy from server to server we are only getting 230
> >> >> MBps
> >> >> at
> >> >> the highest throughput rate.

>
> >> > What do you get with those two servers on a different gigabit switch?

>
> >> >> Should we be getting more throughput than this?

>
> >> > It's a pretty difficult question to answer, given how many variables
> >> > there
> >> > are. If you're just interested in the raw throughput of the switch from
> >> > the
> >> > servers, disregarding disk speed etc, try testing it with iperf:

>
> >> >http://dast.nlanr.net/Projects/Iperf/

>
> >> > I suggest you avoid the Java version, as it tends to max out your CPU
> >> > before
> >> > your network. Getting 93Mbps on a switched 100Mbit network here, btw.

>
> >> > --
> >> > <http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
> >> > 21:19:47 up 4 days, 23:07, 2 users, load average: 0.17, 0.19, 0.17
> >> > 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

>
> > Unless there is some architectural component I am not aware of, this
> > must be a source/destination server issue. I have 6500 series
> > switches that consistently push between 2 and 8 gigs per second
> > without batting an eye. As for single server bandwidth, I have seen
> > 2-3 gigs per second for tivoli backup boxes (4 gig etherchannel to the
> > server itself), and for single-gig connections, I have seen 8-900 megs
> > fairly regularly. Granted these are almost all non-wintel boxes, and
> > are usually very large IBM nodes/system complexes or another flavor of
> > unix. As for a windows server that is tuned and has some good
> > hardware, i have seen 3-400 meg, but have never really watched them
> > too closely. All in all, I am guessing you have hit a threshold on
> > your server or with whatever copy program you are using, but your
> > performance seems within my expectations.- Hide quoted text -


For maximun backup throughput you may need to adjust
max tcp receive window
backup software - network block size
backup software - tape block size
backupo software - buffer, number of blocks

Depending on your exact server model and
backup hardware 1000Gbps may be approachable
or not.

The switch itself is not going to be
a limitation.

A KEY, let me repeat, KEY, issue is
the block/window sizes versus the round trip
time between the machines.
The throughput is limited to

RTT * block size.

At 1 ms with a windows copy (absolute
max block size of 64k). The throughput
will be constrained to

64,000,000 Bytes per sec.

This is called the Bandwidth Delay product.

If you change the block size in iperf
you will be able to drive the network pretty hard.

iperf -c -l 100000 x.x.x.x
iperf -s -l 100000

The default is 8k which I wold guess
would not usually
allow a 1G network to be saturated unless
maybe you had a super machine (two.

The easiest way to fond the limit of the network hardware
is to add iperf sessions

iperf -s -l ...
ipers -s -p 5002 -l ...
iperf -s -p 5003 -l ...

iperf -c -l ... x.x.x.x
iperf -c -p -5002 -l .... x.x.x.x
........

Until the aggregate throughput stops increasing.
You have then eliminated individual iperf settings
or behaviours as an issue. Something will
truely, let me repeat TRUELY, be full up.

Even ping can be used to generate high bandwidths
if you have enough of them.

c:\> for /l %i in (1, 1, 100) do start cmd /c
fping x.x.x.x -s 1400 -t 0

roughly

fping.exe from http://www.kwakkelflap.com/

The software is better than the name which
I can never remember.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Using a Gigabit copper to Gigabit fiber media converter for an IDF rjmnyc@optonline.net Cisco 5 05-06-2006 12:51 PM
Supply Telephone Voice Modular Adapters,Telephone Modular Couplers,Modular Duplex Jack,Triplex Adapters,Telephone extension Cord samul888@vip.163.com Cisco 1 11-13-2005 09:23 AM
Supply Telephone Voice Modular Adapters,Telephone Modular Couplers,Modular Duplex Jack,Triplex Adapters,Telephone extension Cord samul888@vip.163.com Computer Support 0 11-12-2005 06:22 AM
Supply Telephone Voice Modular Adapters,Telephone Modular Couplers,Modular Duplex Jack,Triplex Adapters,Telephone extension Cord samul888@vip.163.com VOIP 0 11-12-2005 06:22 AM
Supply Telephone Accessories,Modular Adapters Couplers,Duplex Jack,Triplex Adapters,ADSL Adapters,Plug With RJ12 Jacks samul888@vip.163.com Cisco 0 11-10-2005 07:47 AM



Advertisments