On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
