For some people, the overhead is an acceptible tradeoff to redundancy. Ever since Cisco released thier 6500 10/100 blades that to crappy buffering between a Gigabit NFS server (could be anything, just an example) and an 100Mbit client, people have somewhat been adding that overhead to thier CPU and data-rate budgets as "acceptable losses".
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Dec 13), Mike Silbersack said: > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2001, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > > Geoff Mohler wrote: > > > :Are there any hidden secrets to eeking out more performance from > > > :the BSD NFS client (other than version types and the normal fstab > > > :tweaks). > > > > And if you hadn't heard, Matt just fixed a couple of bugs in the tcp > > stack which improves NFS greatly. It sounds like after this round of > > NFS fixes, the first answer to NFS questions should be: Upgrade to > > 4.5! > > I don't even bother with TCP mounts; my default amd rule says > proto=udp. Is there any reason to add the overhead of the TCP stack if > you're not leaving your own ethernet? > > You should be able to easily saturate a 100mbit link with FreeBSD 4.* > machines, and I can do 15-20MB/sec with Netgear GA620 gigabit nics (SMP > 2 x pIII/600). > > -- > Dan Nelson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --- Geoff Mohler To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
