Comment 6 for bug 1847892

I expect so. I don't usually have a machine available to run as a server though, hence the preference for rsync.

If you're concerned that the NAS might be the bottleneck, don't be. That's a sensible point to raise, but it's GbE and saturates it wired. (To say nothing of the months during which the rsync consistenly hit 80+).

If you think iperf might narrow the scope of where to look though, let me know and I'll try it next time I can dedicate a machine to it: shouldn't be more than a week.
(hmm - I could run one up in a VM at will, which would still have more than enough network performance for this, but I'm not sure I'd fully trust the results from that until I've got a baseline to compare against. I'll try to remember it when I boot the client off an older kernel).