AS400 100Mb/sec speed? Not even close!
Steve Swett
disappointed with our FTP transfer speeds and would like to figure out why
so slow.
Last night I did some testing with everyone off the system and with the
network very isolated:
The AS/400, a 10/100 hub, and a PC with a 10/100 NIC were the only devices
connected -- all within a few feet of each other.
My typical FTP transfer rate was only about 4 - 5Mb/sec. Top speed attained
a couple times was about 8Mb/sec.
I tried a variety of combinations of line speed (10, 100, auto) and duplex
(full, half, auto) and TCP/IP send/receive buffer sizes, etc. I also tried
a variety of settings on the PCs NIC for speed and duplex. It just wouldn't
get any better. I literally ran about 100 tests -- repeating some several
times because I know transfer rates fluctuate from minute to minute for some
reason.
I've also changed my default route's maximum transmission unit from 576 to
*IFC. In reviewing my other TCP/IP settings, most are set to the defaults
shown in IBM's on-line help text.
Any ideas what's causing this? Is the FTP server software on the AS/400
what's actually slowing it all down? My system is a "blue stripe" machine
(vs. a "red striper"). If it's because of that, are there any adjustments
that can be made to the subsystem, job, or priority or something that makes
the FTP server software perform better?
TIA
Martin Burgsmüller
I tried this parms and become happy
Martin
"Steve Swett" <sw...@bcswebsite.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:kUkw6.156$Z42.87...@twister2.starband.net...
Jan Willem de Lange
You changed the default gateway to *IFC, did you change the interface
itself to *LIND or something? BTW way, don't mix up megabytes and
megabits. I don't think you can use ethernet for the full 100% . Isn't
the PC the bottleneck?
Maybe a Gigabit connection is the only answer. Try to check the
maximum segment size (mtu minus somewhat, 40 i think) in the netstat
displays.
Jan Willem de Lange
Steve Swett <sw...@bcswebsite.com> wrote in message
news:kUkw6.156$Z42.87...@twister2.starband.net...
Steve Swett
bits vs. bytes, and took special care to compare apples to apples (bits to
bits in this case).
I realize that 100Mbits/sec. is "in theory" but you should be able to get a
whole heck of a lot better than 8Mbits/sec -- especially on a dedicated tiny
network with no other traffic and no regular user activity on the AS/400
(tests done at night when employees gone home).
The PC shouldn't be the bottleneck. I'm going get FTP Server running on an
NT Server and then put it on the tiny test network in place of the AS/400
and test the speeds in that environment. Hopefully that will provide
further evidence that the AS/400 transfer rates are poor - although I'll
still be left to wonder why.
The maximum segment size for my FTP connection, as shown via NETSTAT, is
1380. The max segment size for Telnet connections, also shown via NETSTAT,
is 1435. What does this tell me?
"Jan Willem de Lange" <Jan.Wille...@freeler.nl> wrote in message
news:99t2tp$6pq$1@Snowflake_Obsidian.lion-access.net...
Paul Nicolay
What is slow... how many KB/s do you get reported by FTP, or was it 8Mbits/s
(1000 KB/s) ?
I get 2800 KB/s (crossing a Linux machine, so maybe it could even be
better), on our 100 Mb/s AS/400, not even running in Full-Duplex.
Kind regards,
Paul
------------------
Steve Swett wrote in message
<5hrw6.290$T14.95...@twister2.starband.net>...
The contents of this message express only the sender's opinion.
This message does not necessarily reflect the policy or views of
my employer, Merck & Co., Inc. All responsibility for the statements
made in this Usenet posting resides solely and completely with the
sender.
Tamas Feher
>I don't think you can use ethernet for the full 100% .
In real world ethernet LANs start to saturate at 40% utilization (as
opposed to 70% for token-ring). Connecting only two machines with a
crosslink cable you can achieve max. 70% utilization with ethernet,
too. Ethernet is not a very good protocol, but is cheap.
Sincerely: Tamas Feher.