From owner-freebsd-isp Sun Jun 11 22:28:34 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.49]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B77837B943 for ; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:28:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by misery.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 131MTq-0005MK-00; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:09:46 -0700 Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:09:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Steven Ames Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Good mount options for NetApp 760 In-Reply-To: <20000609093329.A35451@vic.cioe.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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