From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Dec 13 9: 3:29 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from niwun.pair.com (niwun.pair.com [209.68.2.70]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1EAD037B42F for ; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 09:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 32903 invoked by uid 3193); 13 Dec 2001 17:03:16 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 17:03:16 -0000 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 12:03:16 -0500 (EST) From: Mike Silbersack X-Sender: To: Dan Nelson Cc: Matthew Dillon , Geoff Mohler , Subject: Re: NFS: How to make FreeBSD fall on its face in one easy step In-Reply-To: <20011213153035.GB56448@dan.emsphone.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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