Does this transfer speed seem too slow?

[Red Squirrel]

Was not really sure where to post this as it could be related to Linux, or the network.

I have a NAT within a NAT using physical routers. From the most inner NAT I have full access to the NAT that it's within, so I am rsynced to a physical server from a physical server through ssh. I am copying files from a raid5 to a raid 1. It's been about an hour, maybe more, and only 5Gigs copied (1 file). I'm connected at 100mbps as that is the lowest equipment bottleneck. Unless the router's uplink is only 10meg (which would make sense for a broadband router, no need to go higher) but I'm pretty sure on that router it's actually a gig uplink while the switch inside is gig, though the nics of the servers are 100mb.

I'm not seeing that bad of a load on either servers. The raid5 server load is 0.51 and the raid1 server (receiving end) is 1.13. Just seems odd that it's taking this long, but considering it's rsync over SSH, does this sound normal? There is some overhead afterall.

 

[bobdole369]

1.3MB/second via SSH is respectable. Your routers uplink is most likely 100mbit - which would give you 10MB/second betwixt the networks. *.7 for overhead leaves you with 7MB/second. Add ssh to the mix and you're a bit slow at 1.3MB, but its not ridiculously so. It all depends on the hash, but I would think adding 15% to the bytes transferred is probably pretty close.. More important than the link speed is the CPU speed of the machines in question. This is what is more likely to cause slower transfers.

 

[Crusty]

I've never ever had issues with sftp going slow on a network, usually maxes out at 10.2MB/s on a 100mbps network and I'll let you know how fast on our new 1000mbps network soon, but not sure on rsync. One thing to remember is that if you are copying lots and lots of small files you will have a LOT more OS overhead thus slowing down your transfers when compared to copying larger files.

Also, why the double NAT? If you are trying to keep your networks separate you should consider VLAN's instead, much more graceful then double NAT IMO.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Ok guess I wont worry then, it just seemed odd. Also it's definatbly not processor, these are fairly modern machines. As for the double nat, I just don't have the money to spend on expensive cisco routers as I'm saving up for a house. Later on I want to setup a better network with cisco gige stuff and a pix and whole shebang.

 

[spidey07]

NAT slows things down. Doing it twice even more so. Now if the routers are actually have the capacity to do full line rate NAT then that shouldn't be a problem, but most SOHO router can't do it.

 

[Crusty]

You don't need expensive Cisco routers to use VLAN's. DD-WRT supports it out of the box.