Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Geoff Mohler <gemohler@www.speedtoys.com>, <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: NFS: How to make FreeBSD fall on its face in one easy step Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.30.0112131148410.29919-100000@niwun.pair.com> In-Reply-To: <20011213153035.GB56448@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Dec 13), Mike Silbersack said: > > And if you hadn't heard, Matt just fixed a couple of bugs in the tcp > > stack which improves NFS greatly. It sounds like after this round of > > NFS fixes, the first answer to NFS questions should be: Upgrade to > > 4.5! > > I don't even bother with TCP mounts; my default amd rule says > proto=udp. Is there any reason to add the overhead of the TCP stack if > you're not leaving your own ethernet? > > You should be able to easily saturate a 100mbit link with FreeBSD 4.* > machines, and I can do 15-20MB/sec with Netgear GA620 gigabit nics (SMP > 2 x pIII/600). > > -- > Dan Nelson > dnelson@allantgroup.com I'm not a NFS user, so I can't comment on how NFS is normally used... but my guess would be that while UDP may be faster when you're benchmarking two computers, it'll cause a lot more congestion when you have 200 computers. Mike "Silby" Silbersack To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.30.0112131148410.29919-100000>