Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, abs wrote: > >> Sorry for being vague but I actually tried it with the cifs in zfs >> option, but I think I will try the samba option now that you mention >> it. Also is there a way to actually improve the nfs performance >> specifically? > > CIFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

>> >> CIFS uses TCP. NFS uses either TCP or UDP, and usually UDP by default. > > For Sun systems, NFSv3 using 32kByte [rw]size over TCP has been > the default configuration for 10+ years. Do you still see clients running > NFSv2 over UDP? Yes, I see that TCP is the default in Solaris 9. Is it

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, abs wrote: > > >> Sorry for being vague but I actually tried it with the cifs in zfs >> option, but I think I will try the samba option now that you mention >> it. Also is there a way to actually improve the nfs performance >> specifically? >>

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

On Fri, 28 Mar 2008, abs wrote: > Sorry for being vague but I actually tried it with the cifs in zfs > option, but I think I will try the samba option now that you mention > it. Also is there a way to actually improve the nfs performance > specifically? CIFS uses TCP. NFS uses either TCP or

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

abs wrote: > Sorry for being vague but I actually tried it with the cifs in zfs > option, but I think I will try the samba option now that you mention > it. Also is there a way to actually improve the nfs performance > specifically? We have some recommendations for improving NFS with ZFS on th

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Sorry for being vague but I actually tried it with the cifs in zfs option, but I think I will try the samba option now that you mention it. Also is there a way to actually improve the nfs performance specifically? cheers, abs "Peter Brouwer, Principal Storage Architect, Office of the Chief Tec

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

That is the first thing i checked. Prior to that I was getting somewhere around 1 ~ 5 MB/sec. Thank you though. Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Have you turned on the "Ignore cache flush commands" option on the xraids? You should ensure this is on when using ZFS on them. /dale On Ma

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Have you turned on the "Ignore cache flush commands" option on the xraids? You should ensure this is on when using ZFS on them. /dale On Mar 27, 2008, at 6:16 PM, abs wrote: > hello all, > i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 > xraids are configured with 2 raid5 vo

Re: [zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

Hello abs Would you be able to repeat the same tests for the cifs in zfs option instead of using samba? Would be interesting to see how the kernel cifs versus the samba performance compare. Peter abs wrote: hello all, i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950.  the 2 xraids are

[zfs-discuss] nfs and smb performance

hello all, i have two xraids connect via fibre to a poweredge2950. the 2 xraids are configured with 2 raid5 volumes each, giving me a total of 4 raid5 volumes. these are striped across in zfs. the read and write speeds local to the machine are as expected but i have noticed some performance