mina-ftpserver-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Steve Luebbe <slue...@linoma.com>
Subject Re: Active vs Passive performance
Date Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:30:32 GMT
So, I've done a lot additional testing and here are the results.

We currently have a GlobalScape FTP Server in our network up and 
running.  I ran two transfers to it, each with 35 small files, one in 
active and one in passive mode.  Both transfers took approx 3 seconds to 
complete.  Then I took Apache FTPServer and installed it on the same 
machine and ran the same tests to it.  Passive took 3 seconds and active 
took around 156 seconds.  This test eliminates my theory that it's 
network or pc related.

Below is a small clip from the log file during the active transfer that 
took a long time.

[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] RECEIVED: PORT 
192,168,1,213,194,107
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 200 
Command PORT okay.

[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:32,828 [erick] [192.168.1.213] RECEIVED: STOR 
/PERFORMANCE/DB_CSV_FTP.XML
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] File upload : 
erick - /performance/db_csv_ftp.xml
[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 150 File 
status okay; about to open data connection.

[ INFO] 2008-11-06 12:19:37,328 [erick] [192.168.1.213] SENT: 226 
Transfer complete.

As you can see there is a 5 second delay in there only during Active 
connections.  If you need any additional information please let me know.

Thanks in advance!!
Steve

Niklas Gustavsson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 11:09 PM, Steve Luebbe <sluebbe@linoma.com> wrote:
>   
>> Has anyone noticed a difference in performance between FTPing in Active mode
>> vs. Passive mode?
>>
>> I have two laptops on the same network:
>> 1) Client - Windows Vista, firewall disabled, using FileZilla
>> 2) Apache FTPServer - Windows XP, firewall disabled
>>
>> When FileZilla is set to passive it is relatively fast.  When I switch it to
>> active it is 2 times to 3 times slower.
>> I've done quite a bit of research and playing around but I haven't been able
>> to determine why.  I'm hoping someone can shed some light on this for me...
>>     
>
> Do you see the same behavior with other clients? I can't see anything
> obvious in our code that would cause this but I don't have any numbers
> to back that we don't have a problem in this area.
>
> /niklas
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database
3592 (20081106) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>   

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message