toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Re: Sun Client Maximum Throughputs (again)
by mds＠gbnet.net 06 Jan '00

06 Jan '00

On Wed 7 Jan, 1930, Darrell Fuhriman <darrell(a)grumblesmurf.net> wrote: > mds(a)gbnet.net (mark) writes: > > > What I'm thinking of is that AFAICR tcp_xmit_hiwat and tcp_recv_hiwat > > are set to 8192 (bytes) and the equivalent *lowat's to 2048. This is > > We're using this on our 2x400 MHz E450's and we see ~60MB/s using > switched gigabit. That's pretty respectable! Could you go through how some of these settings help - I'm not 100% clear on some of these meself: These three pin the duplicity of the line, fair enough. > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000fdx_cap 1 > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000hdx_cap 0 > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_1000autoneg_cap 0 These two do what? > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseTX 0 > ndd -set /dev/ge adv_pauseRX 0 Much bigger buffers than I got for 100Mb/s networks, makes sense. Have you found these value by experiment or otherwise? > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 262144 > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 262144 How come this is set so low? > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_lowat 2048 How do each of these three things affect things? > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_wscale_always 1 > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_tstamp_always 1 > ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_rexmit_interval_max 60000 > > Note these are dedicated backup servers, so the very high > tcp_X_hiwait may not be appropriate if you're not doing lots of > bulk data transfer. > > The tcp_tstamp_always is a big win. Tantalising - I'd like to know more. > Darrell > >-- End of excerpt from Darrell Fuhriman -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Netapp w. multiple NIC in WINS ?
by Johan Gillquist 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Hi, I have installed a quad ethernet NIC i my 720 and I wonder how it will present it self in the NT Domain. Does any one know how to be sure trafic goes to the correct interface ? How does WINS react on a NT/Netapp host with multiple NIC's ? My NT servers are on the same subnet as the "e1a" interface and NFS clients on the "e0". Regards /Johan

2 1

RE: Sun Client Maximum Throughputs (again)
by Fox, Adam 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

You've probably already checked this, but back from my Tech Support days, we always told folks to manually set speed and duplex on both sides. Speed is less of an issue because if the speed isn't matched, you'd be passing far less good data than what you are seeing, but duplex mis-matches can certainly cause very bad performance over 100Mb/s interfaces. The other big thing is retransmissions of 32K UDP requests. However, since these are cross-over cables I hope this isn't the issue. I have seen this on very busy switched networks that 32K UDP can really get slow due to nasty retransmission times. Hope this helps. -- Adam Fox > I didn't see any satisfactory answers to this the last time > around, but I'm doing a bit of benchmarking for a killer tape backup > server (streaming ~60MB/sec to tape). I have an older Sun E450 with 2 > x 250-MHz CPU's and a Quad Fast Ethernet NIC in one of the PCI slots. > > qfe0 is directly attached to an idle F740, and likewise for qfe1 > to another idle F740. Please tell me I should be able to see more > than an aggregate 10 MB/s doing dumps over rsh with that setup? I'm > shuffling the dump streams off to /dev/null so local disk speed is not > an issue. On another system, a 2 x 300-MHz E450 with two single-port > NIC's, I'm able to pull about 15 MB/s total. Does the Sun QFE just > suck, and I should stick to individual single-port NIC's? > > I want to lead up to a 4 x 450-MHz E420R with Gigabit Ethernet, > and hope I can achieve 50 MB/s or more from eight F740's. Has anyone > tried this configuration? > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" >

1 0

Re: Sun Client Maximum Throughputs (again)
by mds＠gbnet.net 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

On Wed 7 Jan, 1930, Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Brian Pawlowski wrote: > > > > I thought I could use a 2 x 400MHz Ultra Enterprise E250 > > with a new Sun GbE card in it as a killer client, and > > I find that with V3 32KB UDP packets, the sucker > > rolls over at > > > > ~30 MB/s > > > > with 2 CPUs pinned at 99% in system time. > > > > This *sucks*. > > I didn't see any satisfactory answers to this the last time Ditto. <snip> > NIC's, I'm able to pull about 15 MB/s total. Does the Sun QFE just > suck, and I should stick to individual single-port NIC's? Have you tweaked up the high water and low water marks for transmission and reception, out of interest? What I'm thinking of is that AFAICR tcp_xmit_hiwat and tcp_recv_hiwat are set to 8192 (bytes) and the equivalent *lowat's to 2048. This is predicated on 10Mb/s ethernet networks. Not 100Mb/s contentionless networks. This is true in Sol2.5.1, but I've not checked in other Solarises.. They can be checked with: ndd /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat ndd /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat ndd /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_lowat They can be set higher with the machine up using: ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_hiwat 32768 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_recv_hiwat 32768 ndd -set /dev/tcp tcp_xmit_lowat 24576 or with appropriate lines in /etc/system. UDP can also be checked and set the same way: ndd /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat ndd /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat ndd /dev/udp udp_xmit_lowat ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_hiwat 32768 ndd -set /dev/udp udp_recv_hiwat 32768 ndd -set /dev/udp udp_xmit_lowat 24576 I'm wondering if people seeking higher NFS performance might want to investigate these settings? (I'd be interested in seeing what people have their nfs:nfsv3_nra set to too 8) All this is straight from the Sun FDDI 5.0 manual, but we're talking 100Mb/s either way, and I've used these settings before. I'm not in a position to test whether they'll have any benefit - or whether Solarises >2.5.1 choose better defaults to start with. Perhaps you can check and set me straight either way? I'm guessing but I think there might be a little mileage in setting them higher still for Gb/s networks. But the faster CPU's and better NIC smarts will offset some buffering requirements in your proposed system. At least they *should*. 8) The FDDI manual goes on to talk about setting the socket options..but that's a whole other kettle of fish. Using netstat -k <interface> might yield interesting numbers, in particular norcvbuf and noxmtbuf which are the buffer allocation failure counts. In Sol2.6 and on, according to Cockfroft at least. If the above defaults are in place make a note of the interrupts and any info from vmstat 5, mpstat 5 and netstat -k that looks interesting as the settings stand doing a dump, *then* change them and rerun the test. I've got a bit of an axe to grind about the hme and qfe interfaces on Sun's.. and this would be v. interesting to me. > -- > Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) > "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" > >-- End of excerpt from Brian Tao -- -Mark ... an Englishman in London ...

1 0

Sun Client Maximum Throughputs
by beepy＠netapp.com 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Do any of our customers out there have some measurements of Sun client throughput? I thought I could use a 2 x 400MHz Ultra Enterprise E250 with a new Sun GbE card in it as a killer client, and I find that with V3 32KB UDP packets, the sucker rolls over at ~30 MB/s with 2 CPUs pinned at 99% in system time. This *sucks*. In an experimental filer setup reading from memory (all cached data) the F760 CPU is at 20%. I am totally client bound. Has anyone sized Sun clients out there? Are the PCI clients dogs? Is the new GbE card from Sun a loser? Should I go grab a new Alteon card for the Sun? What is your killer high performance client? It seems a function of the Sun E250 - 100BaseT seems to scale only to 30 MB/s before running out of CPU... Broken-hearted in Amsterdam, beepy

9 13

Re: Budtool / backup sw Mailing-List??
by dnb＠ccs.neu.edu 05 Jan '00

05 Jan '00

Michael Coxe <mc(a)com21.com> writes: > Is there a mailing-list for this sort of discussion? > I'm looking for one, either Budtool specific or UNIX/NT > generic (@ enterprise level). > > If not, do others feel a need for one? We'd be very interested in one as well (and would be willing to host if it didn't exist already). Anyone else? Peace, dNb

4 5

W2000 and CIFS auth with unix passwd
by Stephen C. Losen 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

We are currently using unix passwd authentication for our CIFS logins. The filer is a NIS client. It works great because we use a single NIS passwd database for our unix boxes and the filer. The unix boxes all NFS mount the filer, so our users can access their home directory either via CIFS or via telnet to unix. The same password works for both methods. The whole reason we bought the filer was to provide this unified "home directory service." We are concerned about W2000 because no release we have tried works with this setup. We realize that clear text passwords must be enabled for this to work. There is even a registry entry for enabling this, but W2000 doesn't seem to pay any attention to it. We have over 25,000 accounts in our NIS database. We have no problems with W95, W98 or NT, so it seems dreadfully unfair to us that Microsoft would suddenly pull the plug on such an essential (to us) feature. I'm wondering if anyone else on this list knows anything about whether Microsoft plans to address this issue. Is anyone else out there using unix authentication for CIFS logins? How are you going to deal with W2000? I know we could work around this problem with a domain controller, etc., but that involves a lot of $$ for the NT box, NT account licenses, and maintaining a parallel user database. Or perhaps we can do it with Samba somehow. But our setup right now is so simple and painless. Admittedly it is less secure with clear text passwords, but we haven't turned off telnet, ftp, pop, imap, etc., yet and they use clear text passwords, too. Steve Losen scl(a)virginia.edu phone: 804-924-0640 University of Virginia ITC Unix Support

2 1

y2k
by fubar＠mathworks.com 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Some of you may be wondering why you're just now getting messages from Jan 1st and on. No, it's not sendmail's lovely queue processing. In fact, it was hypermail not being happy with they year 2000. Damn thing spun in a loop forever... Anyway, I've upgraded. As a result, I've had to completely rebuild the toasters archive. A quick glance and it looks happy. The search, on the other hand, I'm not so sure about... I'll have to play around a bit with that. If anyone notices any problems, please let me know. The archive is located at http://teaparty.mathworks.com:1999/toasters.html Kendall..

4 3

RE: CIFS delays.
by Sanborn, Ed 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

Actually I fixed the problem by sync'ing my duplex settings. They were mis-matched with the network port that the filer was connected to. -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/> -----Original Message----- From: Sanborn, Ed [mailto:esanborn@northchurch.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 3:03 PM To: 'toasters(a)mathworks.com' Subject: CIFS delays. Hi folks, I have an F720 running 5.2.2. I am experiencing significant delays with the CIFS protocol. NFS is fine. Any troubleshooting suggestions? -Ed Ed Sanborn (978) 691-6496 Manager of Computing Infrastructure Newbridge Networks Inc. 5 Corporate Drive Andover, MA. 01810 Fax (978) 687-4442 http://www.northchurch.net <http://www.northchurch.net/>

1 0

Re: Netapp w. multiple NIC in WINS ?
by Brian Rice 04 Jan '00

04 Jan '00

> I have installed a quad ethernet NIC i my 720 and I wonder how it will > present it self in the NT Domain. Does any one know how to be sure > trafic goes to the correct interface ? How does WINS react on a > NT/Netapp host with multiple NIC's ? My NT servers are on the same > subnet as the "e1a" interface and NFS clients on the "e0". I used to have multi-homed F630's running CIFS. The multi-homing was mostly a historical accident; the network environment was such that traffic's choice of interface didn't have performance implications. Anyway, the big problem was that NT 4 revisions prior to Service Pack 4 have a NetBIOS bug that's exposed when you try to play with a multi-homed server. Every so often, NT clients would get a "The network path cannot be found" error when they tried to access a share from a NetApp. When you did a net view from a DOS prompt, you'd get System error 53 has occurred. At the time, there was an NT patch; the fix nowadays would be to upgrade to a non-ancient service pack. Brian

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters