FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Ubuntu > Kubuntu User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-29-2010, 02:59 AM
Robert Collard
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

In Terminal type "rsync" (without quotes) Look at the list of options and set up a command to look at the transfers you are wanting to test the speed of. The options are many and I don't know your HD's descriptive terms like dev-1 or dev-0

--
Robert Collard <bobcollard@sbcglobal.net>

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-29-2010, 03:09 PM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Thursday 28 January 2010 09:52:57 pm Billie Erin Walsh wrote:
> Steven Vollom wrote:
> > My new system has SATA Drives and all file systems are ext4. They work
> > much faster that the drives and old ext3 file system.
> > Although sometimes the speed will spike for a few seconds to around
> > 170mbs, transfers are usually around 100 mbs. When transfers are runnint
> > 150 to 170mbs, a 1.5gb transfer of data only takes around 10 seconds.
> > These high speeds are not always present. Sometimes and usually they
> > average around 100 to 120mbs. On rare occasions they will go as low as
> > 50 to 60 mbs. I make a lot of 1 to 3gb transfers and have been
> > monitoring the speeds trying to understand what type of data or file type
> > or any other identifiable characteristic is present at the varying
> > speeds. Recently to solve a problem that seemed not able to be fixed, I
> > re-installed Kubuntu Karmic. After the install, I lost the ability to
> > view the speed variations. Also, the Icon seems to be the same on the
> > panel, a blue circle with an "i" in the center, but the dropdown progress
> > bar has changed. I assumed it was an change in the plasmoid that
> > happened when I re-installed. If it can be re-configured to include the
> > varying rate of speed during data transfers, I would like that very much.
> >
> > It did not seem to have anything to do with whether the file was a rar or
> > avi file, which surprised me, but I am interested if it may be a factor
> > of the hardware, the SATA drives reving up. My speculation is based on
> > the fact that when transfers are being made, the panel icon has changed,
> > and the progress bar that drops down no longer provides the speed of
> > transfer data; the only thing it shows is the general position of the
> > data transfer. Apparently my interest is unusual. No one seems to
> > recognize the change.
> >
> > When I first started monitoring the speeds, the dropdown would appear for
> > a couple of seconds and disappear; when I clicked on the blue icon with
> > the "i" in it, the dropdown would appear again, only this time it would
> > remain until the transfer was completed. It was the first time I noted
> > the changing and sometimes very high transfer speeds, when a 1.5gb
> > transfer would complete almost before I could click on the icon the
> > second time to continue to view the progress.
> >
> > This research I am doing is not for a business purpose, however, when I
> > have an understanding of what is taking place, I am confident it will
> > have positive application in business usage.
> >
> > I tried your suggestion, but have previously right-clicked the icon
> > looking for configuration. I did this quite a while ago, and did not
> > remember what was contained in that selection. The information is
> > interesting, but the choices for changing configuration are not helpful
> > for my inquiry.
> >
> > Thanks for trying.
> >
> > Steven
>
> Upload/download speeds are more dependent on the internet paths, server
> speeds on the other end, and server loads on the other end.
>
Dear Billy,

I don't think I posted 'download or upload' speeds. I am talking about
transferring data from one drive to another, or one partition to another on
the same drive. I am trying to learn why transfer speeds vary so much when
making data transfers internally. My thoughts are that perhaps the drives are
slowing down and have to be spun again to get them up to speed, but that did
not make sense when speeds spiked and went to, let's say, 180mbps for just a
moment. You would think the speed would remain at the higher speed for a
second or two. In fact there are times when the higher speed remains for a
few seconds. When that happens, a 1.5gb transfer takes only about 10 seconds.
When it first happened it was very exciting, even though it does not happen
very often, but many times it will remain stable at about 120 to 130mbps for a
complete transfer, which is still very fast. Still at other times, I have
seen it go to 40mbps for a brief moment, then return to 60mbps to complete the
transfer, but those slower speeds are not common at all. 100+ is common.

I am trying to learn how these things work. I have a quad processor, lots of
memory, and two SATA drives now, and things happen very fast by comparison to
my slower machine of the past. I can remember in the past when transferring
700mb took 7 or 8 minutes, now it happens at a maximum of about 7 to 10
seconds. This is quite exciting for me.

By the way, I know that many people do not use ext4. Ext4 is the only file
system I use. When I installed with ext4 file system, things sped up
dramatically from before, and I was using my more powerful computer at the
time. Using ext3 file system, it was not unusual to see speeds of 20 to 60mbps
although it was mostly at the 60mbps speed. When I changed to ext4 is when
speeds dramatically improved.

I have read that ext4 is not stable; sometimes I have unexpected problems with
my computer. I have wondered from time to time if those unexplainable
problems could have to do with data transfer speeds created by ext4 file
systems. I really don't know how to find that out either. Most people seem to
warn against the ext4 file system, but they don't use it, so I don't understand
how they would know. Since I made that change, I have never had a problem
that appeared to have anything to do with transfer speeds or unstable file
systems. And since I make a lot of transfers of gig or better and often, I
really enjoy the speed I get. Nonetheless, I may be one of very few that use
ext4 exclusively, so understanding the implication of doing so is not very
published.

Before I re-installed Karmic, transfer speeds showed in the drop-down progress
bar. I would see when it changed from a spike of 180mbps to 120 then perhaps
to 150 then back to 120, the 120mbps dominating the transfer. On a large
transfer, the total transfer time still was only affected by a couple of
seconds.

My needs are not business related, so they may not be of interest to most on
the list, but I would still like to know. I would still like to have the same
monitoring capability, because it helps a lot in working my problem. Thanks
for trying to help.

Steven

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-29-2010, 03:13 PM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

Trim
>
> Sorry, I guess I wasn't following the conversation close enough. The
> pop-up for internal transfers might also be dependent on that setting.
> I've never really paid any attention to internal transfer speeds.
>
> You can also please pardon my just sent previous post. It's not relevant
> either.
>
Sorry my friend, I just answered a post to you that more explained my need. I
hope it did not use the airway too much. What I am doing here is quite
exciting. please feel free to contact me privately for updates on what i am
finding if it suits you. And thanks for the attempt to help.

Steven

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-29-2010, 03:23 PM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Thursday 28 January 2010 10:16:41 pm nepal wrote:
> On Friday 29 Jan 2010 01:38:55 Steven Vollom wrote:
> > I just noticed in your reply mentioning you hadn't downloaded
> > anything lately. I may have misrepresented my desire. If I used
> > the term downloading, I made a mistake. I am talking about
> > internal transfers of information. HDD to HDD or from partition
> > to partition. My download speeds max out at about 320kbps. That
> > is very slow when referring what I am talking about. If I misused
> > the language, I am sorry.
> >
> > Steven
>
> Ah! Now I am with you. You mean the Notifications and Jobs icon (and I
> did think of this in the first place, but your descriptions persuaded
> me away from it! LOL.
>
> AFAIU there is no selectable icon for that service and IINM it appears
> in the .....
>
>
>
> and I've just discovered what you are after. Right click the system
> tray will give you various options.
>
> nepal.
>
I believe I read all the various options without success. Do you think the
progress bar that shows from the panel is a KDE item or perhaps Kubuntu Karmic
or perhaps someone who created a plazmoid? I would like to ask the correct
creator about this. Thanks!

Steven

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-29-2010, 04:06 PM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Thursday 28 January 2010 10:59:57 pm Robert Collard wrote:
> In Terminal type "rsync" (without quotes) Look at the list of options and
> set up a command to look at the transfers you are wanting to test the
> speed of. The options are many and I don't know your HD's descriptive
> terms like dev-1 or dev-0
>
Dear Mr. Collard,

This is above my experience level, however, it is a fascinating entry. If I
wanted to move a movie file from where it is to my backup partition, would this
be an appropriate command, using the rsync command you provided and the
followiing wording:

steven@Yeshua:~# rsync --address=/svpersonal/steven/Movies/Artistic
Movies/Gran Torino /backup --bwlimit=MBPS -h --human-readable

"/svpersonal" is the mount point, the balance of which is the location of a
movie file I would like to backup. Previously I had a progress bar that
provided what I want in MBPS, so I used MBPS instead of KBPS line in the rsync
command instruction. /backup is the mount point of my backup folder and is on
a separate HDD. I included the human readable instruction because I would
like to be able to read and understand what results.

I am confident my inexperience is showing, however if I got lucky, do you think
it might indicate the megabyte per second rate of transfer?

I used root, because it takes root privilege to enter /backup. I choose not
to experiment by trying it without help; it looks like I could perhaps give my
computer a migraine or an ulcer, especially in root.

Thanks!

Steven

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-29-2010, 11:04 PM
Reinhold Rumberger
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Friday 29 January 2010, Steven Vollom wrote:
> On Thursday 28 January 2010 09:52:57 pm Billie Erin Walsh wrote:

<huge snippage>

> > Upload/download speeds are more dependent on the internet paths,
> > server speeds on the other end, and server loads on the other
> > end.
>
> Dear Billy,
>
> I don't think I posted 'download or upload' speeds.

Ever read the e-mail's subject? With a subject like that, confusion
is pre-programmed.

> I am talking
> about transferring data from one drive to another, or one
> partition to another on the same drive. I am trying to learn why
> transfer speeds vary so much when making data transfers
> internally.

(I haven't read the whole thread and am hoping that this isn't too
redundant.)
OK, here are the basics:
During a copy, the available RAM will be used as a buffer. While
there is free RAM, the copy operation will seem to progress at the
speed the source drive can be read from.
There is also a difference depending on whether the source drive and
the target drive use the same BUS or not - if they aren't, the
operation will be a lot faster.
Then there's the matter of how much free space there is on the drives
- writing to a pretty full drive can be very slow...

If you're using KDE (and I'm assuming you do, seeing as you're
posting to this list... ;-) ), there will be a huge difference
between copying large and small files. Since KDE starts a new copy
operation for every file and does a lot of "useless" work in between
operations (for progress information), copying a large amount of
small files will take much longer using the KDE copy than using the
cp command.
Obviously, copying a large amount of small files will always be
slower than copying a large file of the same size as all the small
ones put together. This is due to having to write meta-information on
every file, which is quite time-consuming. This can be improved by
using a file system that is optimised for handling small files
(ReiserFS is one of those, IIRC).

> My thoughts are that perhaps the drives are slowing
> down and have to be spun again to get them up to speed, but that
> did not make sense when speeds spiked and went to, let's say,
> 180mbps for just a moment. You would think the speed would
> remain at the higher speed for a second or two. In fact there
> are times when the higher speed remains for a few seconds. When
> that happens, a 1.5gb transfer takes only about 10 seconds. When
> it first happened it was very exciting, even though it does not
> happen very often, but many times it will remain stable at about
> 120 to 130mbps for a complete transfer, which is still very fast.

This is partially due to the buffering mentioned above. Also,
obviously, the target drive's write speed is a limiting factor.

> Still at other times, I have seen it go to 40mbps for a brief
> moment, then return to 60mbps to complete the transfer, but those
> slower speeds are not common at all. 100+ is common.

This suggests that a read or write operation is taking place on one
of the drives, temporarily slowing down the transfer.

<snip>

> I have read that ext4 is not stable;

That is incorrect. It isn't tested as thoroughly as its predecessors,
but it most certainly is stable (there was some patch in the Ubuntu
9.04 kernel which rendered deleting unstable, but that was an
exception).

> sometimes I have unexpected
> problems with my computer. I have wondered from time to time if
> those unexplainable problems could have to do with data transfer
> speeds created by ext4 file systems.

Ext4 may perform somewhat less than optimal at times due to a lack of
optimisation, but apart from that: nope, problems would most likely
cause the operation to fail rather than to slow down. Hardware
problems on the other hand... ;-)

> I really don't know how to
> find that out either. Most people seem to warn against the ext4
> file system, but they don't use it, so I don't understand how
> they would know.

There is a lot of theory behind the inner workings of a computer, and
you don't always need to use something to be able to apprehend
problems.
Also, not using something because it's not well-tested is a *very*
valid reason and the one I've come across most often.

--Reinhold

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-30-2010, 12:20 AM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

Trim again
> (I haven't read the whole thread and am hoping that this isn't too
> redundant.)

So far, it seems the most informative.

> > OK, here are the basics:
> During a copy, the available RAM will be used as a buffer. While
> there is free RAM, the copy operation will seem to progress at the
> speed the source drive can be read from.

A while back, there was a thunder storm. When I returned home I had to reset
the main breaker. Of course the computers were off. After that it was quite a
while before I got the system restored. The result was My outer two slots for
memory seem to have been toasted. In any event, I was reduced to 4gb of ram
instead of 8gb. That being said, I also was getting help from a friend in
South Africa who was having terrific success with ext4 in his AMD 64bit system.
He said he had used it for months without any problems and enjoyed much
greater transfer speeds. I had to fresh install anyway, so I chose ext4.

I haven't been problem free in the time that passed, however, no one mentioned
the ext4 as a problem for the problems I have been helped with, and my
transfer speeds have more than doubled since the change, so I haven't
considered changing back.

From previous computers, the amount of ram at 4gb is so great that I hadn't
considered a shortage or cache shortage. I have an AMD quad 9600 with, I
believe 512mb of cashe for each of four processors and a 20gb swap file for my
own reasons. So, the thought of running out of cache or ram hadn't hit me
yet.

Both my HDD's are SATA with 600gb vacant on one and 400gb unused on the other,
so I don't think there is any shortage of space, and perhaps the reason I get
such wonderful speeds most of the time. Each has cache, but I can not
remember the amount right now.

One thought I had was that I have heard that the HDD's are not constantly
running at 7200rpms. I thought perhaps when they slowed and before the power
was speeding them again, that that was cause for dips in speed. Your idea of
cache shortage makes more sense to me though.

I don't know for a fact, but I don't think the drives operate on the same bus,
but I do not know.

I usually have several applications running at the same time, so next time I
run a large file to backup, I will shut down everything else to see if it shows
an increase.

I believe the file system has been running stable, so I will retain it until I
find that it is causing problems. Before I installed ext4, transfer rates were
anywhere from 20 to 60mbps with very occasional and brief spikes to 79mbps at
the fastest. Now transfers take place usually around 120 to 130mbps with
occasional relatively sustained speeds around 150mbps. On a couple of
occasions transfer went to 180mbps and sustained the speed for all but part of
1 second on a 1.4gb transfer which finished in just over 10 seconds. It will
spike to 170 to 180mbps, but rarely sustains at that speed for more than a few
seconds at most.

I realize equipment has advance greatly since I built my computer, but I am
trying to learn how to maximize transfers without over-clocking anything. My
motherboard is an ASUS M3N-HT Mempipe and has many different ways to over-clock
many different chips. I haven't even looked at those features yet. If I use
them, it will be only to optimize the system; I am not a gamer. Perhaps it
will be efficient to slow a chip a bit to make it more compatible with the
others. If so, that is what I will do.

Thanks for the info, I am going to work with this until it no longer seems
interesting.

Trim

> Since KDE starts a new copy
> operation for every file and does a lot of "useless" work in between
> operations (for progress information), copying a large amount of
> small files will take much longer using the KDE copy than using the
> cp command.

I am just learning to use the konsole more. I will use the cp command from
now on, if it is faster and/or better.

> This is partially due to the buffering mentioned above. Also,
> obviously, the target drive's write speed is a limiting factor.
>
Both drives are Maxtor SATA's a 1.5tb and a 500gb. The 500gb is the backup
drive and most large file transfers take place from the larger to smaller
drive. Both have the same specifications, as i recall. I am going to check
that.
Trim

> > I have read that ext4 is not stable;
>
> That is incorrect. It isn't tested as thoroughly as its predecessors,
> but it most certainly is stable (there was some patch in the Ubuntu
> 9.04 kernel which rendered deleting unstable, but that was an
> exception).

I have been successfully using ext4 for over 6 months now with no negative
impact that I am aware of. Perhaps my experience is useful for the
developers. I transfer lots of large files.
>
Trim
>
> There is a lot of theory behind the inner workings of a computer, and
> you don't always need to use something to be able to apprehend
> problems.
> Also, not using something because it's not well-tested is a *very*
> valid reason and the one I've come across most often.

I am retired. Most of my joy is derived from learning to use and using a
computer. I don't even mind crashing and re-installing, as long as I am not
unable to use my computer for too long a period of time.
>
> --Reinhold
>

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-30-2010, 12:21 AM
Ric Moore
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:09 -0500, Steven Vollom wrote:

> I don't think I posted 'download or upload' speeds.

Try the subject title... Ric

--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
Linux user# 44256
https://nuoar.dev.java.net/
Verizon Cell # 434-774-4987



--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-30-2010, 12:23 AM
Steven Vollom
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

On Friday 29 January 2010 08:21:40 pm Ric Moore wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:09 -0500, Steven Vollom wrote:
> > I don't think I posted 'download or upload' speeds.
>
> Try the subject title... Ric
>
Boy do I feel stupid. Thanks for the light.

Steven

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 
Old 01-30-2010, 01:53 AM
Robert Collard
 
Default Download Speed with Kubuntu Karmic 64bit

Dear Mr. Collard,

>This is above my experience level, however, it is a >fascinating entry. If I
>wanted to move a movie file from where it is to my >backup partition, would this
>be an appropriate command, using the rsync command you >provided and the
>followiing wording:
>
>steven@Yeshua:~# rsync --address=/svpersonal/steven/>Movies/Artistic
>Movies/Gran Torino /backup --bwlimit=MBPS -h --human->readable

>"/svpersonal" is the mount point, the balance of which >is the location of a
>movie file I would like to backup. Previously I had a >progress bar that
>provided what I want in MBPS, so I used MBPS instead >of KBPS line in the rsync
>command instruction. /backup is the mount point of my >backup folder and is on
>a separate HDD. I included the human readable >instruction because I would
>like to be able to read and understand what results.
>
>I am confident my inexperience is showing, however if >I got lucky, do you think
>it might indicate the megabyte per second rate of >transfer?
>
>I used root, because it takes root privilege to enter />backup. I choose not
>to experiment by trying it without help; it looks like >I could perhaps give my
>computer a migraine or an ulcer, especially in root.
Set up two windows, one with File to be moved and other with distination. Create Command line without initializing it (Make it up in a text editor and copy/paste is the easiest way.) Drag and drop the file and then start the command line. Either you will get an error message telling what is missing or needed, or you will get the results you want. Sounds kind of iffy but I see no bad commands in there that is going to wipe out your HD..

--
Robert Collard <bobcollard@sbcglobal.net>

--
kubuntu-users mailing list
kubuntu-users@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/kubuntu-users
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org