On Fri, Joe Little wrote: > On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Fri, Joe Little wrote: > >> Well, I used the dtrace script used here. The NFS implementation > >> (server) is Solaris 11 B38, and the client and the RHEL linux > >> revision, which doesn't have this problem going through other > >> SAN-based NAS (NetApp, EMC, etc.. even iSCSI). I previously setup a > >> Linux box as an iscsi initiator, XFS, and Linux's less than stellar > >> kNFS server revision, and did not see this interaction. Thus, if there > >> are any thread issues, its likely on Solaris' end or there is > >> particularly bad interaction with linux clients if and only if the > >> solaris backend is iSCSI. That latter doesn't make sense. > > > >It is a server response time issue as you have demonstrated with data. > >The server in the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path is not responding as quickly > >as other combinations and for this particular application, the overall > >throughput is subpar. > > > >Focusing on the disparity found to understand why the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI > >combo is not working well seems like the correct path. > > > > That's where I'm at a loss. Has the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path been tested by > Sun at all?
I don't know and this seems like a good point to move the discussion to zfs-discuss and nfs-discuss to see if there is additional input. Spencer _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
