Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 15:15:43 -0700 From: "Crist J. Clark" <crist.clark@attbi.com> To: Robert Johannes <rjohanne@piper.hamline.edu> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nfs and ipfw Message-ID: <20030501221543.GA85403@blossom.cjclark.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0305011234150.2401-100000@mendeleev.hamline.edu> References: <20030428211643.GA41761@blossom.cjclark.org> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0305011234150.2401-100000@mendeleev.hamline.edu>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 12:38:12PM -0500, Robert Johannes wrote:
> I've tried your suggestion, and even added a log option to the frag rule
> below, but I don't see anything being denied or dropped from the
> nfsclient. Instead, the frags are accepted, but it is as if the server
> doesn't have anything to say back, and so it never says anything back.
> Meanwhile, the nfsclient keeps sending the frag traffic to the
> server.
Is the server sending back any ICMP type 11 code 1?
> I've not tried the tcp option for nfs yet, my main concern being
> performance. I read that performance for tcp nfs is not on per with udp
> nfs.
That depends on who you ask. Many people insist TCP performance is
better. It depends a lot on how you use it and whether you tune NFS
appropriately for each type of transport. And tuning NFS is much more
an art than a science.
--
Crist J. Clark | cjclark@alum.mit.edu
| cjclark@jhu.edu
http://people.freebsd.org/~cjc/ | cjc@freebsd.org
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030501221543.GA85403>