Leopard and Snow Leopard Gigabit ethernet performance

[mathemabeat]

Howdy folks!

I know one of the improvements mentioned with Snow Leopard is faster SMB networking. What about AFP?

I am running a pair of Hackintoshs with Gigabit ethernet and with AFP file sharing I get about 60 megabytes a second read/write between the two of them. After researching it some, it appears this is pretty much in line with what Apple's machines do with AFP as well.

Both machines running Leopard. One machine is ran headless in a closet and its acting as a media server.

I am wondering if anyone has done any GigE network benchmarks with Snow Leopard to Snow Leopard or Snow Leopard to Leopard with AFP?

 

[belvdr]

Not that I know of, but 60MB/sec is a _very_ good rate. Unless you are writing to hardware accelerated arrays with a large write-back cache and many spindles (or writing directly to memory), you'll never get to the gigabit limit.

 

[velocityg4]

Howdy folks!

I know one of the improvements mentioned with Snow Leopard is faster SMB networking. What about AFP?

I am running a pair of Hackintoshs with Gigabit ethernet and with AFP file sharing I get about 60 megabytes a second read/write between the two of them. After researching it some, it appears this is pretty much in line with what Apple's machines do with AFP as well.

Both machines running Leopard. One machine is ran headless in a closet and its acting as a media server.

I am wondering if anyone has done any GigE network benchmarks with Snow Leopard to Snow Leopard or Snow Leopard to Leopard with AFP?

That is definitely very good performance. I have some the fastest 7200RPM's that were available 6 months ago. And they peak at around 80MB/s write speed when transferring large files directly between the two.

Not that I know of, but 60MB/sec is a _very_ good rate. Unless you are writing to hardware accelerated arrays with a large write-back cache and many spindles (or writing directly to memory), you'll never get to the gigabit limit.

You could easily saturate the gigabit limit transferring large files between two RAID 5 SSD arrays. Or did you mean that it is impossible to actually achieve gigabit Ethernet's theoretical gigabit speed due to latencies and other flaws.

 

[belvdr]

You could easily saturate the gigabit limit transferring large files between two RAID 5 SSD arrays. Or did you mean that it is impossible to actually achieve gigabit Ethernet's theoretical gigabit speed due to latencies and other flaws.

RAID 0, maybe, but I'm not sure about RAID 5. Once you start filling up those SSD's, though, your performance will begin to deteriorate. I've never tested either, but you'll get close enough with either option. Still, 60MB/sec is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm not sure of any other flaws or latencies on GigE.

 

[velocityg4]

RAID 0, maybe, but I'm not sure about RAID 5. Once you start filling up those SSD's, though, your performance will begin to deteriorate. I've never tested either, but you'll get close enough with either option. Still, 60MB/sec is nothing to sneeze at.

I'm not sure of any other flaws or latencies on GigE.

I wasn't speaking about impact of performance over time. Just that two computers running RAID 5 could easily saturate a GbE connection. Say two Mac Pro's with the Quad Channel Fibre channel cards connected to the VTrack RAID's.

Though that was a ridiculous point. The Corsair CMFSSD-256GBG2D boasts 200MB/s write performance versus Gigabit Ethernets 128MB/s throughput. Many of the high capacity SSD's boast greater write speeds than that of Gigabit Ethernet.