From owner-freebsd-isp Mon Jun 12 9:28:48 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from vic.cioe.com (ns1.cioe.com [204.120.165.37]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6555C37B559 for ; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 09:28:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from seames@winstar.com) Received: from ny1wsh031 (blackhole.cioe.com [204.120.165.44]) by vic.cioe.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA76655; Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:28:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from seames@winstar.com) Message-ID: <001f01bfd48b$383085f0$851a050a@winstar.com> From: "Steven E. Ames" To: "Tom" Cc: References: Subject: Re: Good mount options for NetApp 760 Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:28:18 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4029.2901 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4029.2901 Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Trial and Error testing... Mmm.... at present the setup is very simple: netapp-1:/vol/vol0/export/laf/home /home nfs rw,userquota,nosuid This is running under FBSD 4.0-STABLE which defaults (I believe) to UDP/NFSv3. I was hoping that someone had already done the legwork and I would just stand on their shoulders. *grin* -Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom" To: "Steven Ames" Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 12:09 AM Subject: Re: Good mount options for NetApp 760 > > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Steven Ames wrote: > > > I'm running a handful of machines that are 4.0-STABLE. They are connected > > to a NetApp F760 via 100Mbit full-duplex ethernet. Can anyone suggest good > > NFS mount options to get maximum performance? > > > > -Steve > > > I'd like to know that as well. I guess some empirical study should give > you the answer though. NetApp makes a benchmark utility called postmark > that should help. It can also help stress test your setup too. > > I suspect that NFSv3 mounts over UDP would give the best performance. > Though TCP mounts on the NetApp are supposed to be be pretty fast too. > NFSv3 should be significantly faster than NFSv2 because of better > directory handling. > > > Tom > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message