Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:30:13 -0800 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-performance@freebsd.org" <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>, Valerio Daelli <valerio.daelli@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Bad performance of 7.0 nfs client with Solaris nfs server Message-ID: <B4337B98-B9A2-40A2-9C85-1BCC3F5FB54F@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <20080220210118.GY99258@elvis.mu.org> References: <27dbfc8c0802190243y113d3059yd0c602850a4dbd6b@mail.gmail.com> <47BB33AD.1050005@FreeBSD.org> <27dbfc8c0802200323r13f69905l4940d0d5accd1eb1@mail.gmail.com> <9BCE1D41-EC1A-4FE6-8551-E725DBE5D3A8@mac.com> <20080220210118.GY99258@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote: >> Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are >> encountering; >> yes, this is expected and things will work but there is extra latency >> added when the IP stack has to reassemble packets before the data can >> be delivered. Try setting the NFS rsize/wsize to 1024 or perhaps >> 1400 >> and see whether that improves performance. >> >> Or, if your switch and NICs support it, see whether you can get Gb >> Ethernet jumbo frames working so that you don't have to fragment for >> 2K or 4K data packets.... > > TCP mounts do not have this problem. You can safely use > 32k or higher sizes with TCP without fragmentation. Oh, sure. But there is a bit more overhead with TCP transport than UDP-- for local (switched) networks, UDP generally seems to be a win...TCP seems to be a better choice over a VPN or some similar kind of WAN. -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?B4337B98-B9A2-40A2-9C85-1BCC3F5FB54F>