Hello Folks @ 3000-l, RE: FTP vs.. DSCOPY performance. I hope everyone had a happy holiday season! I have returned to Atlanta from the wild wild west afer short stays in Tombstone, Sonna, Flagstaff & Phoenix Airzona! I had a chance to run some test over the holidays and evaluate FTP vs. DSCOPY performance.... Here are my findings: Test file set: ACCOUNT= HOFMESTR GROUP= TEST FILENAME CODE ------------LOGICAL RECORD----------- ----SPACE---- SIZE TYP EOF LIMIT R/B SECTORS #X MX TEST1G8A 80B FA 13421772 13421772 3 4194304 * * TEST1G8B 40W FB 13421772 13421772 3 4194304 * * TEST1GBA 256B FA 4194304 4194304 1 4194304 * * TEST1GBB 128W FB 4194304 4194304 1 4194304 * * TEST1GBS 1B BA 1073741824 2147483647 1 4194304 * * TEST2GBA 256B FA 8388608 8388608 1 8388608 * * TEST2GBB 128W FB 8388608 8388608 1 8388608 * * TEST2GBS 1B BA 2147483647 2147483647 1 8388608 * * TEST5GBA 256B FA 20971520 20971520 1 20971520 * * TEST5GBB 128W FB 20971520 20971520 1 20971520 * * ====================================================================== Kbytes /sec 1gb 1gb 2gb 5gb 1gb 1gb 2gb 5gb 1gb 1gb bin bin bin bin asci asci asci asci byte byte r 80 r256 r256 r256 r 80 r256 r256 r256 strm strm ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- FTP 1670 1660 1522 1183 619 625 608 580 1672 1522 DSCOPY 871 866 858 844 865 881 880 852 fail fail ====================================================================== ((Seconds /60) /n Gb) {Minutes to transfer 1Gb} 1gb 1gb 2gb 5gb 1gb 1gb 2gb 5gb 1gb 1gb bin bin bin bin asci asci asci asci byte byte r 80 r256 r256 r256 r 80 r256 r256 r256 strm strm ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- FTP 10.4 10.5 11.5 14.8 28.9 28.1 29.0 30.4 10.5 11.5 DSCOPY 20.3 20.3 20.4 20.7 20.2 20.0 20.0 20.7 fail fail ====================================================================== Notes: 1) The test above are run on 989-400 MPE 7.5 w/8190 Mb memory transferring to a 987-200 MPE 6.5 w/768 Mb memory over a isolated 100BT Full Duplex switch. 2) Your Mileage Will Vary (YMWV) - The documented performance numbers are useful to evaluate the differences between DSCOPY and FTP in a controlled (isolated) environment, but these numbers will change with different systems, memory sizes, disc performance, network interface cards and link traffic levels (In this test the performance of the 987-200 is the obvious limiting factor). 3) Dscopy does not support 'byte stream' file transfers. Error reported is: SOURCE FILE CANNOT BE BYTE STREAM RECORD TYPE (NFT/3000 ERR 115). 4) With current patches FTPHD66/FTPHD67/FTPHD68 'byte stream' file transfer is as fast or faster than binary transfers. 5) Dscopy of 'typical' 80 byte or 256 byte ascii files is 30-35% faster than ftp. 6) Ftp of 'typical' 80 byte or 256 byte binary files is 30-45% faster than dscopy With current patches FTPHD66/FTPHD67/FTPHD68 installed. 7) Ftp performance does drop significantly as the file record length decreases for both ascii and binary file transfers. Important fixes: 1. 8606331712 FTP Byte stream performance fix. 2. 8606328875 FTP Repair binary >4Gb. 3. 8606299250 FTP Repair >40Gb & >4Gb performance Improvements. 4. 8606269614 FTP Repair variable >3Gb. 5. 8606294908 FTP Repair Inbound Unix & Nt >4Gb. Patches: FTPHD66 for C.65.00 (Site Specific) FTPHD67 for C.70.00 (Site Specific) FTPHD68 for C.75.00 (Beta Test) Note-1: When requesting the fix from the HP-Response Center, it is important to request the fix by SR number. Note-2: Due to the lack of interest for the 6.5 and 7.0 fixes, they are still Site Specific. We typically require additional problem verification before a Site Specific patch is sent by the HP-Response Center. I hope this helps. Regards, James Hofmeister Email: <first>.<last>@hp.com Hewlett Packard - Global Solutions Engineering (WTEC) P.S. My Ideals are my own, not necessarily my employers. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, * * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *