Sorry if this has been asked before, however I've not found anything definitive in previous posts.

My Peg2 Gigabit lan port is connected via gigabit switch to my PC gigabit lan port. On the switch, green light indicates Gb speed, orange indicates 10/100 speeds. The PC shows Gb connection (green light), however the Peg2 shows only 10/100 connection (orange light). This fits with the data transfer speeds maxing out at around 4.9MB/s (~40Mb/s) over SMBFS with 32KB stack included in the command line (run >NIL: stack=32768 SMBFS etc...). I've also tried using AmiTradeCentre with similar speed results. I'm using the latest M68K build of SMBFS form sourceforge.net.

In summary:
Is there any way to make MOS connect at Gb speeds?
Is this a limitation of the hardware driver?
Is there some configuration setting I've missed somewhere?
Has anyone actually achieved >100Mb/s transfer speeds from/to Peg2 under MOS?

Thanks folks. :)

Quote:
Yes.
Quote:
Gigabit is a limitation of the hardware.
Quote:
There may be some settings for the marvell driver, haven't seen any documentation though.
Quote:
Yes, works fine for me here, no need for any extra configuration with standard MTU.

Stupid question perhaps, but only to rule out the most obvious, which of the ports on your Pegasos 2 are you using?

@TMHG

No stupid questions, only stupid mistakes

I'm using the port closest to the PS/2 ports. WRT the diagram on page 25 of the Peg2 Andwenderhandbuch (user manual) item 7 is the gigabit port.
Also, Netlamps tells me that there is no activity through the Rhine_pci device - all activity is shown on the Gb device.

The switch is a Netgear GS605 v3, and transfers at Gb speed between my PS3 and PC - it's just the Peg which seems stuck at 100Mb/s speeds.

Frustrating...

@Golem

Thanks for the reply.

Q Is this a limitation of the hardware driver?
A Gigabit is a limitation of the hardware.

Poorly worded on my original question:
I realise that Gb is a limitation of the hardware, I was asking if the device driver was limited to operating at a reduced 100Mb/s under MOS.

I'd be interested to know what transfer speeds you achieve when transferring a large file form Peg2 to another Gb capable networked device.

PS - Think I've solved the problem - it was a poor quality cat5 cable. Have just swapped it over for a better qualtiy Cat5 cable, and the switch now indicates Gb speed connection. Will try sending some files across the network and see what I can see...

@boot_wb

Would you mind post some data about the speed of smbfs with gb link?

Thanks!

Czk

EDIT :
Hu... Posting at the same time. :)

[ Edited by Tcheko on 2009/8/13 17:24 ]

Improvements!

After changing the dodgy Cat5 cable, and subsequently connecting at 1000Mbps, transfer speeds have increased:

Using SMBFS (32kB stack) = around 6Mbps
Using ATC = around 7.8Mbps

Twice as good as I was getting previously, but still not achieving anything near 100Mbps (ie 12.5MBps), let alone making the most of gigabit speeds.
However I expect this is down to limitations in the software: from what I have read SMBFS is not as good as it could be, and FTP is not the most efficient way of transferring data across a LAN.

So finally I ask, does anyone have any recommendations on LAN filesharing/share mounting software? Having looked through Aminet and the downloads section, I could not see anything (specifically compiled for MOS) for filesharing.

Using smbfs I get downloads around 15-16MB/s and uploads 3-4MB/s.

Quote:

Samba speed is highly dependant of the underlying hardware. Some cheap NAS have a max speed of 3Mb/s over 100Mbit link.

15/16Mb read is really good imo.

Czk

Quote:

Thanks for the info

Didn't think to try downloading, was just uploading.

So, using SMBFS I get:
Peak of ~12MB/s (~96Mb/s) downloading, ~6MB/s (~48Mb/s) uploading

Using ATC I get:
Peak of 12.7MB/s (~102Mb/s) downloading, 7.8MB/s (62Mb/s) uploading

Test based on transferring a single large (~330MB) file with no directories.

NB - ATC does not appear to recognise large partition sizes correctly, and kicked up a warning that I did not have sufficient space on the drive - there was 5GB free space, however this was reported as -1b available by ATC.

[ Edited by boot_wb on 2009/8/13 21:14 ]

@boot_wb

It's normal for smbfs to have slower transfer rates than FTP...it has more overhead and/or the smbfs port/implementation isn't the greatest..probably not nearly as mature as any FTP application, especially ATC.

ATC wasn't built with full support for large file and partition support, btw.