Re: [zfs-discuss] *SPAM* Re: zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-31 Thread Kyle McDonald
On 3/27/2010 3:14 AM, Svein Skogen wrote: > On 26.03.2010 23:55, Ian Collins wrote: > > On 03/27/10 09:39 AM, Richard Elling wrote: > >> On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's > >>> not that

Re: [zfs-discuss] *SPAM* Re: zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-27 Thread Ian Collins
On 03/27/10 08:14 PM, Svein Skogen wrote: On 26.03.2010 23:55, Ian Collins wrote: On 03/27/10 09:39 AM, Richard Elling wrote: On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi, The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's not that much.

Re: [zfs-discuss] *SPAM* Re: zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-27 Thread Svein Skogen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 26.03.2010 23:55, Ian Collins wrote: > On 03/27/10 09:39 AM, Richard Elling wrote: >> On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's >>> not that much. >>>

Re: [zfs-discuss] *SPAM* Re: zfs send/receive - actual performance

2010-03-26 Thread Ian Collins
On 03/27/10 09:39 AM, Richard Elling wrote: On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Bruno Sousa wrote: Hi, The jumbo-frames in my case give me a boost of around 2 mb/s, so it's not that much. That is about right. IIRC, the theoretical max is about 4% improvement, for MTU of 8KB. Now i