1 |
Am Mon, 15 May 2017 22:14:48 +0100 |
2 |
schrieb lee <lee@××××××××.de>: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Kai Krakow <hurikhan77@×××××.com> writes: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Am Sun, 14 May 2017 01:28:55 +0100 |
7 |
> > schrieb lee <lee@××××××××.de>: |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> >> Kai Krakow <hurikhan77@×××××.com> writes: |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> [...] |
12 |
> [...] |
13 |
> >> [...] |
14 |
> [...] |
15 |
> >> |
16 |
> >> Wow, you must be living in some sort of paradise. Here, internet |
17 |
> >> is more like being cut off from the rest of the world. |
18 |
> >> |
19 |
> >> But then, there's a manufacturer that makes incredibly slow USB |
20 |
> >> sticks which I won't buy anymore ... |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > Okay, it really depends. I shouldn't say "most"... ;-) |
23 |
> |
24 |
> Intenso --- pretty cheap, but awfully slow; however, it does |
25 |
> work. Better don't buy anything they make unless your time is entirely |
26 |
> worthless to you. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> > I compared my really crappy (but most reliable yet) old USB stick |
29 |
> > to my internet connection. My USB stick doesn't do 48 MByte/s, more |
30 |
> > like 5-10. And don't even ask when writing data. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> 5--10MB/s? How do you get that much? |
33 |
|
34 |
For reading? It can work, tho it will eventually drop to 2 MB/s after a |
35 |
short time. For writing: It drops well below 1 MB/s after a short burst. |
36 |
|
37 |
> > Even my rusty hard disk (read: not SSD) has a hard time writing |
38 |
> > away a big download with constantly high download rate. |
39 |
> |
40 |
> It must be really old then, about 20 years. |
41 |
|
42 |
No, it's just that other IO is also ongoing and filesystem internals |
43 |
have some write overheads and involve head movement which easily limits |
44 |
the drive from its theoretical ideal rate of 120-150 MB/s. Short |
45 |
bursts: No problem. Long running writes are more like 50-70 MB/s, which |
46 |
is pretty near the download rate. |
47 |
|
48 |
It's also what I see in gigabit networks: Copy speed could be somewhere |
49 |
between 100 and 120 MB/s, but the local drive seems to easily limit |
50 |
this to 70-80 MB/s. |
51 |
|
52 |
My current setup allows constant writing of around 270-280 MB/s |
53 |
according to: |
54 |
|
55 |
# dd bs=1M if=/dev/urandom of=test.dat |
56 |
13128171520 bytes (13 GB, 12 GiB) copied, 48,0887 s, 273 MB/s |
57 |
|
58 |
So it's not that bad... ;-) |
59 |
|
60 |
But dd also runs at 100% CPU during that time, so I guess the write |
61 |
rate could be even higher. I see combined rate of up to 500 MB/s |
62 |
sometimes tho I'm not sure if this is actual transfer rate or just |
63 |
queued IO rate. Also, it is pretty near the SATA bus saturation. I'm |
64 |
not sure if my chipset would deliver this rate per SATA connection or |
65 |
as a combined rate. |
66 |
|
67 |
|
68 |
> > But I guess that a good internet connection should be at least 50 |
69 |
> > MBit these days. |
70 |
> |
71 |
> I'd say 100, but see above. The advantage is that you have sufficient |
72 |
> bandwidth to do several things at the same time. I've never seen fast |
73 |
> internet. |
74 |
|
75 |
My provider easily delivers such rates, given the remote side is fast |
76 |
enough. Most downloads a saturated at around 15-20 MB/s. Only few |
77 |
servers can deliver more. Probably not only a limit of the servers, but |
78 |
the peer network connections. |
79 |
|
80 |
|
81 |
> > And most USB sticks are really crappy at writing. That also counts |
82 |
> > when you do not transfer the file via network. Of course, most DSL |
83 |
> > connections have crappy upload speed, too. Only lately, Telekom |
84 |
> > offers 40 MBit upload connections in Germany. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> They offer 384kbit/s downstream and deliver 365. It's almost |
87 |
> symmetrical, yet almost unusable. |
88 |
|
89 |
Sounds crappy... No alternative providers there? Problem is almost |
90 |
always a combination of multiple factors: A long running cable limiting |
91 |
DSL to a lower physical bandwidth, and usually a too limited traffic |
92 |
concentrator in that area: You should see very different transfer rates |
93 |
at different times of the day. |
94 |
|
95 |
|
96 |
> They also offer 50Mbit and deliver between 2 and 12, and upstream is |
97 |
> awfully low. Tell them you could pay for 16 instead of 50 because you |
98 |
> don't get even that much, and they will tell you that you would get |
99 |
> even less than you do now. That is unacceptable. |
100 |
|
101 |
Yes... They would downgrade you to less performing DSL technology then. |
102 |
It's all fine for them because you only pay for "up to" that bandwidth. |
103 |
|
104 |
|
105 |
> And try to get a static IP so you could really use your connection ... |
106 |
|
107 |
No problems so far, at least for business plans. |
108 |
|
109 |
|
110 |
> > I'm currently on a 400/25 MBit link and can saturate the link only |
111 |
> > with proper servers like the Steam network which can deliver 48 |
112 |
> > MByte/s. |
113 |
> |
114 |
> You must be sitting in a data center and be very lucky to have that. |
115 |
|
116 |
Cable network... In a smallish city. |
117 |
|
118 |
Next involvement is announced to be 1 GBit in around 2018-2019... |
119 |
Something, that's already almost standard in other European countries. |
120 |
Well... "standard" in terms of availability... Not actual usage. I |
121 |
think the prices will be pretty high. But that's okay: If you need it, |
122 |
you should be willing to pay that. It won't help to have such bandwidth |
123 |
without the provider being able to effort the needed infrastructure. |
124 |
It's already over-provisioned too much as you already found out. |
125 |
|
126 |
|
127 |
-- |
128 |
Regards, |
129 |
Kai |
130 |
|
131 |
Replies to list-only preferred. |