From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 24 6: 0:28 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FAF437B404 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from proxy.centtech.com (moat.centtech.com [207.200.51.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D39C43E3B for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 06:00:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from sprint.centtech.com (sprint.centtech.com [10.177.173.31]) by proxy.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OD0Ok27087; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:00:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from root@localhost) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) id g8OD0Of08288; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:00:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from centtech.com (electron [204.177.173.173]) by sprint.centtech.com (8.11.6+Sun/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8OD0Kg08281; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:00:20 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <3D9061C9.5050409@centtech.com> Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 07:59:53 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD NFS server using two NICs References: <3D8A3E52.2090202@centtech.com> <3D8A428B.B96FBE75@mindspring.com> <3D8A458B.2080608@centtech.com> <3D8A4B40.67C8E2A2@mindspring.com> <3D8F66AB.8020309@centtech.com> <3D8F8401.E77A5DA9@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert wrote: > Eric Anderson wrote: > >>Clients are UDP.. > > > UDP for NFS is evil. See the list archives for details. Unfortunately, I have several hundred RedHat 6.2 boxes that still need to access my NFS servers - and they use UDP. > >>Ok.. I'll give the read/write size shrinkage a try - Do you know what >>should work? mtu's from ifconfig show 1500 - that seems awefully small. > > > Make it all fit in one packet. I don't know what options, etc., > you are using. I would suggest 1K (1024), so that it will fit > in a single packet, even with some extra options set. > > 1500 is the standard MTU... if it looks small to you, you must > have some really whacked-out hardware... and it must violate the > ethernet standards. 8-). I meant the read/write size seems small to be set at 1500 or 1k. That would significantly reduce performance, correct? > > Feel free to switch to an 8K (8192) or large read/write size, > *IF you use TCP instead of UDP*. I think you are on to something here - I and using TCP only, and it's working fine using both interfaces. UDP strikes again! damn.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Systems Administrator Centaur Technology The moon may be smaller than Earth, but it's further away. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message