At 5:13 PM -0500 9/11/2000, Larry McVoy wrote:
[...]
>> > > > over a 384Kbits/sec link.
>
>That's a 48Kbyte/sec link. Hardly a "horribly fast network". In fact,
>the bandwidth to FSMlabs.com and innominate.org seems to be identical,
>I suspect that my link is the bottleneck, not either of theirs.
>In order for the link to be the reason for the performance difference,
>innominate.org would need to be a .9Kbyte/second link. I kinda doubt
>that seeing as a 128MB cvs checkout took 23 minutes (works out to around
>90Kbyte/sec uncompressed, so cvs must compress it, so I'd guesstimate
>they have around a 30Kbyte/sec link or so).
[...]
"It's the latency, stupid". I wouldn't care to argue whether CVS is slower
than BK or not, but consider that if you had a router between you and the
CVS server that was dropping even 5% of your packets, or even just bumping
the latency by a quarter second (and I've seen routers that do that. evil
things), the timing numbers will jump *significantly*.
The best way to test network performance between the two protocols would be
to get yourself a good ol'fasioned serial cable and connect your test
client and test server to eachother via PPP at about ~9600bps or so, *then*
do your tests. Equal (though low) latency, equal (definatley low)
bandwidth, equal server and client performance.
Of course, all the CVS work I do is either over local 10/100 ethernet or
through my 6d/1uMbit cablemodem (which actually gets 6d/1u, up here in the
great white north), so what do I care? 8)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
-- Tony "Nicoya" Mantler - Renaissance Nerd Extraordinaire - nicoya@apia.dhs.org Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada -- http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST