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 Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:16:26 GMT
Well I have good and bad news to report.  The good news is that we found 
out why the active connection speed is slower.  The bad news is that it 
relates to the version of JRE you are running. 

With 1.5.0_16 JRE:
1) Active connections are extremely slow
2) If you browse a remote site and keep changing directories over and 
over (ls) it will actually stop responding after  20+ commands or so.

With JRE 1.6.0_07 everything seems to be working fine.

Hopefully this information is good enough for you to go on and debug the 
problem.  We were planning on deploying Apache FTPServer with our 1.5 
JRE system but that will depend on what the outcome of this thread is.

Thanks,
Steve

David Latorre wrote:
> Hello,
>  This is a very odd behaviour indeed. Any way, we should congratulate
> ourselves that Apache FtpServer might perform as well as GlobalScape.
> Although it seems that globalscape can do much more things than us.
>
> How are you sending the files? It would be great if you could provide a test
> case (e.g., using commons net ftp) so other people can check this behaviour
> in their environment.
>
> David
>
>
> 2008/11/7 Erik Morton <eimorton@gmail.com>
>
>   
>> I have observed similar results but I haven't tested it like this yet.
>>
>>
>> On Nov 6, 2008, at 5:30 PM, Steve Luebbe <sluebbe@linoma.com> wrote:
>>
>>  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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>
>
>
> __________ 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