This set of tests shows NcFTPd against the stock SCO ftpd (which appears to be wu-ftpd). Tests were run with ftpd and NcFTPd running 25 users on a 16 MB, 60 MHz Pentium system.
The idle graph shows that NcFTPd keeps the system less busy than ftpd. The variance between samples is a bit wild on NcFTPd's graph, but it seems to show that NcFTPd has about a 20% edge in efficiency.
The load average graph clearly shows that NcFTPd is being much friendlier to the machine than ftpd, which is burying the poor little machine with only 25 users.
Now, the data transfer results:
| Type | kBytes | seconds | kB/sec |
|---|---|---|---|
| ls | 1238 | 5054.430 | 0.245 |
| dir | 3765 | 3069.122 | 1.227 |
| get < 10 kB | 12301 | 1940.103 | 6.341 |
| get < 32 kB | 24916 | 675.788 | 36.870 |
| get < 128 kB | 25085 | 311.754 | 80.465 |
| get > 128 kB | 514436 | 3367.170 | 152.780 |
| TOTAL | 581744 | 14418.367 | 40.347 |
| Type | kBytes | seconds | kB/sec |
|---|---|---|---|
| ls | 3399 | 1425.228 | 2.385 |
| dir | 5445 | 994.984 | 5.473 |
| get < 10 kB | 19202 | 1980.594 | 9.695 |
| get < 32 kB | 40076 | 779.067 | 51.442 |
| get < 128 kB | 40665 | 353.911 | 114.904 |
| get > 128 kB | 1156133 | 4671.108 | 247.507 |
| TOTAL | 1264923 | 10204.892 | 123.953 |
The throughput numbers also show that NcFTPd performed better in every category. Using NcFTPd on this system under these conditions showed that it moved twice as much data out the door.