I assume, in both cases, you're doing the test, right after a clean
reboot of the Windows server or filer?
ie, you're reading from the disk and not from cache?
Are you reading from a similar backend disk subsystem in both cases?
Paul
--
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com
[mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T.
(Lock)
Sent: March 28, 2007 12:10 PM
To: Willeke, Jochen; Brosseau, Paul; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
Either way our performance is in the dirt ;)
From: Willeke, Jochen [mailto:Jochen.Willeke@wincor-nixdorf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:09 AM
To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); Brosseau, Paul;
toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
AFAIK SMB and CIFS is quite the same. SMB is the old name and
CIFS is the rebrand :D
Regards
Jochen
_____
From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com
[mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T.
(Lock)
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:34 PM
To: Brosseau, Paul; toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
I'm assuming the windows to windows xfer is actually SMB not
CIFS
From: Brosseau, Paul [mailto:Paul.Brosseau@netapp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 7:16 AM
To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
Wouldn't the Windows Server to Windows Server file transsfer
also use CIFS? How are the 2 Windows servers logically connected?
Mapped drive? Network Place? IN either case they would also be using
CIFS as their file transfer protocol. Remember, CIFS is a Windows
protocol not a Netapp protocol. We simply implement it on our storage
controllers (filers).
I would expect performance to be as good or better.
Paulb
From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) [mailto:Langdon.Lock@Mayo.EDU]
Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM
To: toasters(a)mathworks.com
Subject: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
I was wondering what the CIFS overhead for a NetApp filer would
be.
Let's say for instance a Windows Server to Windows Server
transfer on the same switch, same subnet, GIG copper interconnects, no
TOE card, etc gets me up to about 50% utilization (500Mbps).
Should that same server to a Netapp Filer see a 20-30%
degradation in TX/RX speeds because of CIFS overhead?
What should I expect for data rates in this type of scenario?
Are there any tweaks anyone knows of to decrease this gap?
(same results using static link aggregation, and LACP for the
VIF)
Thanks
Lock
====================================================================================
La version française suit le texte anglais.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of
Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this
email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from
your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle.
La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion,
utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une
personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez
ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à
l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre
ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.