Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A47C200D08 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 07:45:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 28E231611BF; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 05:45:32 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 6F2821609BF for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 07:45:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 63702 invoked by uid 500); 7 Sep 2017 05:45:30 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@nifi.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@nifi.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@nifi.apache.org Received: (qmail 63692 invoked by uid 99); 7 Sep 2017 05:45:30 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd1-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 05:45:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd1-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B7596D79FF for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 05:45:29 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd1-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.379 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.379 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd1-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx1-lw-eu.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd1-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dB4sX6TNFltU for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 05:45:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qt0-f173.google.com (mail-qt0-f173.google.com [209.85.216.173]) by mx1-lw-eu.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-eu.apache.org) with ESMTPS id AABD05F523 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 05:45:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qt0-f173.google.com with SMTP id k2so25005939qte.2 for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:45:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=WvZ9aU3e8rgeNG8bVlCQQ+zmpLrAblSbvFz6XShCdsA=; b=NH+Tz8sJxcUPQWX6UErf1BsBLxOJ42ghL2g+uq7u1kdZgiCBtgFaa/9ZRT++LICF/C Ua+NGMEL1ajmtS9bxRkUhYjBPDMDCzh0JampzoP6D8UzorrvdNMWevmJeEaGQo42Mf2m Gav/zNSOrKL/ZWiiF5Ty/TEonY34mDU1cCgXBZgMNYGCmxTREgbLXABV27j+CnAC5xDm 54wCQcjJSsr2nVozpnB0iZUNkSUermlxociecby4cnNEJo2iSFEFO/1stiQGybRPlJI1 R+tBq8lPqK1D0HzWee0/ro+tAEyRC5MVXO6a8rIjwyh2VF89F7yDQQVoHJJJiBOEs1rX +L8A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=WvZ9aU3e8rgeNG8bVlCQQ+zmpLrAblSbvFz6XShCdsA=; b=uOFb+GlzbTT/37FlFjlnHKFQC5OrJ4e2thiM5ryTOANQXWM5mPi15m3vqnbQsOdQeo jEjL5T4s3UfQrHb1cK6dmJNlTo6OF5ryJkCDiMKmkzEh2qNtYOihSV4miiaAYXr7bca/ 9jFWtn9ssnwb2AutZ2951grvPUc2LB8pLjqozEPzOPezkHsydGos/xqiAOTTxoasrZzq uXuv9C8DYljhFWsrDLpa1jZolvxqzn/owJc+jOegmVKH+odgoyOayStLVVBi7t1ry0a3 d7ipdFsGtqzhMvONP3WJ8v71V5L/y/sUUfIPyW7Lc09UzMdjBDYePEclbDv9+MA25cFI G9nw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhVU7i8VHO9EPvUvQ2JJmML7yzRYDXtO4VKMeqTBlmNfM64tygb n0WjZHoK/3+G5hVMNSBwDgFRZh+1ga5b X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb5Yw8Hw7twiSG1Xv93lG8EzWeH7Vq8KYFH73Uy3KWQHzFPPo05fV4kZ5EI+d2PeptAbJ+ezouGgGu+foQpRB0g= X-Received: by 10.200.49.38 with SMTP id g35mr2093569qtb.133.1504763118144; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 22:45:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.12.146.24 with HTTP; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 22:45:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Koji Kawamura Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 14:45:17 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Slow FTP and SFTP nifi transfer rates To: users@nifi.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" archived-at: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 05:45:32 -0000 Hello Gino, Thanks for sharing your findings on FTP performance. How did you measure send rate from NiFi to your FTP server? Sending multiple FlowFiles would provide less throughput compared to sending one big FlowFile, as PutFTP and PutSFTP make connection to each incoming FlowFile. The overhead of establishing connection each time might be the performance difference you see with mput command. Those processors can decide which FTP servers to use based on incoming FlowFiles' attribute when NiFi Expression Language is used. If that's the case, there are some room for performance improvement by keeping underlying FTP(S) client instance so that it can be reused among multiple onTrigger() call. A possible work-around would be using MergeContent beforehand and send it as a single file, if your use-case allows that. Thanks, Koji On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Gino Lisignoli wrote: > I have this weird issue with PutFTP and PutSFTP transfer rates. > > What I am seeing is that no matter what files I transfer from One server to > another over a single connection the maximum rates I can send are 300Mbps > for PutFTP and 1Gbps for PutSFTP. > > The sending nifi is installed on Centos 7, running on a Dell R730, 190GB > Ram, 16 Cores @ 2.4GHz and 4x10Gb nics bonded. The sending nifi has it's > content repository on a ramdisk, and the receiving server is receiving to a > ramdisk (for testing, to remove disk IO out of the equation). > > When I do a ftp send manually (without nifi) with mput I get ftp rates of > ~8Gbs and sftp rates of 2.2Gbs (Which seems slow anyway). > > I would have expected transfer rates similar with nifi. > > Is there any way to work out why these rates are so much slower, but also so > consistent? I'm using Nifi-1.30