From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Aug 22 11:05:41 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id LAA07301
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:05:41 -0700
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18])
          by freefall.FreeBSD.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id LAA07295
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:05:40 -0700
Received: from rah.star-gate.com (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with ESMTP id LAA00928; Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:05:04 -0700
Message-Id: <199508221805.LAA00928@rah.star-gate.com>
X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95
To: Brian Tao <taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw>
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Making a FreeBSD NFS server 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 22 Aug 1995 18:16:28 +0800."
             <Pine.BSI.3.91.950822181503.1340K-100000@aries> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 1995 11:05:04 -0700
From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>>> Brian Tao said:
 > On Sun, 20 Aug 1995, Amancio Hasty Jr. wrote:
 > > 
 > > Curious then, where is the time being spend in the NFS code?
 > > 
 > > Given that we can drive the ethernet at near capacity and that the
 > > disks are very fast . It pretty much leads me to believe that
 > > the NFS code or protocol is the bottle neck.
 > 
 >     Are you talking about the case of synchronous writes to a FreeBSD
 > NFS server?  I don't expect the bandwidth in the other cases to climb
 > any higher (already in the 800K/sec to 900K/sec range over 10Mbps
 > Ethernet).
 

Should be interesting to find out the NFS performance numbers with
your configuration using fast ethernet. 

If they are very high, I suggest sending the performance figures to
Networking Computing 8)

	Cheers,
	Amancio