Re: [ARMini-support] Slow Transfer of Large Files on ARMx6 with LanMan98
- From: A Rawnsley <rcomp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: armini-support <armini-support@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2017 15:25:23 GMT
In message <560ab3031fchris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris Johnson <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <8464640a56.martin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Martin Dixon <m.dixon4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
a problem with all large file
transfers to/from ARMX6
I think this is one of the key factors. My network has several RISC
OS native hardware machines, together with an NAS, and another linux
based file store machine. I have found that, in general, transferring
small files, even lots at one time, gives no problem. Once large
files are involved, then the transfer becomes slower and slower as
the transfer progresses. With a directory containing e.g. large
numbers of DSLR images or mpeg files, the transfer slows to a crawl.
None of the other RISC OS machines appear to suffer from this
phenomenon.
As explained previously, it varies based on device. If you use a mid tier
NAS (eg. intel-based QNAP) then you'll have no problems - I transferred a
1 gigabyte video file to ARMX6 without any hiccups (several times). By
contrast, a cheaper dual-core ARM-based one saw hourglassing, but still
"acceptable" performance.
The main reason we can think of is that some devices (inc switches) don't
honour the "buffers nearing full" pause requests we send as per Freescale
i.MX6 data sheet/errata.
The current test ROM allows you to adjust the thresholds used for this,
and we'd encourage you to experiment. However, there's very little we can
do if the hardware buffers are flooded by the sending end, and it doesn't
listen to the "hold your horses, please!" messages we send for flow
control.
From the thread on ROOL forums, it seems that Ti has very similar LAN
performance with its gigabit ethernet as ARMX6. I don't mean this as an
excuse, but rather that it is nowhere near as simple/cut-n-dried as folks
might think.
Incidentally, intel-based NAS devices are not stupid-expensive. The QNAP
2 bay unit I was looking at today was only 30ukp more expensive than the
ARM-based one, and gives roughly double the performance. If you're making
significant use of a NAS, my suggestion would be to consider such a unit.
I didn't realise just what a difference it made until I upgraded.
Andrew
PS, John has fixed a few more things in LanManFS (built-in) which is
reported to perform more consistantly than LM98. We're trying to sort a
couple more things, and will release a new test-ROM at that point.
Michael BG who started this thread reported fast performance under
LanManFS (but with issues that we're fixing) but very slow on LM98. As
such, this may be of interest.
--
R-Comp
22 Robert Moffat, High Legh, Knutsford, Cheshire WA16 6PS
Tel: 01925 755043 Fax: 01925 757377
http://www.rcomp.co.uk
---
To alter your preferences or leave the group,
visit
//www.freelists.org/list/armini-support
List-related queries to info@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Other related posts:
