; <310%20823%208238%20x1106> | M 310 904 8818 <310%20904%208818>*
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
>
> > Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> > > wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interf
823%208238%20x1106> | M 310 904 8818 <310%20904%208818>*
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> > wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly
> slow:
> >
> > R
On 6/29/2015 8:20 AM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> If the Solaris server is using ZFS, setting sync=disabled might help w.r.t.
On my FreeBSD zfs server, this is a must for decent and consistent write
throughput. Using FreeBSD as an iSCSI target and a Linux initiator, I
can saturate a 1G nic no problem w
Hi Rick
On 06/29/2015 02:20 PM, Rick Macklem wrote:
> If the Solaris server is using ZFS, setting sync=disabled might help w.r.t.
> write performance. It is, however, somewhat dangerous w.r.t. loss of recently
> written data when the server crashes. (Server has told client data is safely
> on stab
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Gerrit Kühn
wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
> RM> Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you're using?
>
> I have
>
> ix0@pci0:5:0:0: cla
I wrote:
> Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> > wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
> >
> > RM> Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you're using?
> >
> > I have
> >
&g
Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
> RM> Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you're using?
>
> I have
>
> ix0@pci0:5:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x00028086 chi
Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
> RM> Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you're using?
>
> I have
>
> ix0@pci0:5:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x00028086 chi
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 19:58:42 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
RM> The default (auto tuned) value is reported by "nfsstat -m".
RM> It can be set with a mount option (should be something in "man
RM> mount_nfs"). If you are
On Fri, 26 Jun 2015 20:42:08 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
RM> Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you're using?
I have
ix0@pci0:5:0:0: class=0x02 card=0x00028086 chip=0x15288086 rev=0x01
hdr=0x00 vendor = 'Inte
Scott Larson wrote:
> We've got 10.0 and 10.1 servers accessing Isilon and Nexenta via NFS
> with Intel 10G gear and bursting to near wire speed with the stock
> MTU/rsize/wsize works as expected. TSO definitely needs to be enabled for
> that performance.
Btw, can you tell us what Intel chip(s) you
Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
>
> RM> Recent commits to stable/10 (not in 10.1) done by Alexander Motin
> RM> (mav@) might help w.r.t. write performance (it avoids
to the
> Oracle server, say, god forbid, a *nux box for example.
>
>
> On 26 June 2015 at 11:59, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> > wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
> >
> >
> > RM> R
with another NFS client to the
Oracle server, say, god forbid, a *nux box for example.
On 26 June 2015 at 11:59, Gerrit Kühn wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
>
> RM> Recent commits to stabl
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
RM> Recent commits to stable/10 (not in 10.1) done by Alexander Motin
RM> (mav@) might help w.r.t. write performance (it avoids large writes
RM> doing synchronous writes
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:56:36 -0700 Scott Larson wrote
about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
SL> We've got 10.0 and 10.1 servers accessing Isilon and Nexenta via
SL> NFS with Intel 10G gear and bursting to near wire speed with the stock
SL> MTU/rsize/wsize works as e
Gerrit Kuhn wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We have a recent FreeBSD 10.1 installation here that is supposed to act as
> nfs (v3) client to an Oracle x4-2l server running Soalris 11.2.
> We have Intel 10-Gigabit X540-AT2 NICs on both ends, iperf is showing
> plenty of bandwidth (9.xGB/s) in both directions.
We've got 10.0 and 10.1 servers accessing Isilon and Nexenta via NFS
with Intel 10G gear and bursting to near wire speed with the stock
MTU/rsize/wsize works as expected. TSO definitely needs to be enabled for
that performance. The fact iperf gives you the expected throughput but NFS
does not
Hi all,
We have a recent FreeBSD 10.1 installation here that is supposed to act as
nfs (v3) client to an Oracle x4-2l server running Soalris 11.2.
We have Intel 10-Gigabit X540-AT2 NICs on both ends, iperf is showing
plenty of bandwidth (9.xGB/s) in both directions.
However, nfs appears to be terr
19 matches
Mail list logo
