Question: I've a question which bothers me since quite some time now. I have several environments and servers. All of them are connected to 1 Gbit ethernet swiches (e.g. Cisco 3560).

My understanding is, that a 1 Gbit link should provide 125Mbyte/s - of course this is theory. But at least it should reach ~100Mbyte/s.

The problem here is, that one copy process only reaches ~20Mbyte/s.

I'm aware of these factors but they don't make any difference:

* Source and Destination on the same switch or not
* Copy utility: SCP, Rsync, Windows copy, Windows robocopy
* SMB/CIFS, NFS, iSCSI
* Disk storage: NetApp FAS, locally attached 15k SCSI

With all of these configurations, I never get more than ~25Mbyte/s throughput. The thing is, that if I start multiple parallel copy streams, like 3 times an rsync, i almost reach 90Mbyte/s. I also did some IOMeter tests and found out that the "chunksize" makes a huge difference, but is normally not tunable with the given tools (or is it?).

Jumbo frames are not enabled but I'm unsure if it would make a difference. TOE is enabled on all NICs.

What are the bottlenecks you would think about? Do you have similar experiences? Are these the expected "natural" values?

Thanks in advance

Answer: 
Speed. We load jQuery, jQuery UI from [Google AJAX Libraries API](http://code.google.com/apis/ajaxlibs/), which increases the chance there's a cached version of those libraries in any visitor's cache. And Google's infrastructure / CDN is better optimized for serving these kinds of static files than our own web server.

Other than that, the bandwidth savings are real - those two libraries are quite heavy together.

Con: I don't trust any other host enough to host a library on their site. For any library not listed on Google, we host it ourself.
If you link to a resource to save your bandwidth (or to try improve response times to the user in the case of large common libraries) be aware of two potential major problems:

1. The external host may go down at some point, due to accident, DoS or planned maintenance. This may cause your site to break so make sure you account for it (if only by giving the user a useful-ish message like "Unable to load JQuery, some features may be broken. Please refresh this page. If the problem persists please report to ..."
2. When a new version appears it may have some incompatibility with your other code due to a bad assumption (i.e. you have relied on an undocumented or officially undefined behaviour that has changed between versions, or new features bring with them a namespace conflict). This may break your pages until you find and work around the issue.

If you hot-link to a script or anything else of importance to the running of your application make sure that you keep a local copy anyway. That way you can switch to using the local copy as an interim measure if either of the above problems happen and don't get fixed quickly.