toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

3 participants
13514 discussions

iscsi vifs
by Darish Rajanayagam 04 Apr '07

04 Apr '07

Greetings: Currently, my ISCSI setup consist of a single mode vif on the NetApp side - this connects to a dedicated switch for the ISCSI traffic. I have active/passive clusters connected to this switch with dedicated NICs for ISCSI connectivity. On the server side, I run Snap Drive 4.1 and MS ISCSI Initiator. I would like to change this to the following. 1. Create two multimode vifs (each vif connecting to a separate switch - the switches would then be bridged) 2. Create a second level single mode vif consisting of the above two multimode VIFs - so only one vif is active at any one time. 3. The second level single mode vif will have the same IP address as it is now. If I make the above change, would this affect any of the currently mapped ISCSI connections? Do I need to re-map it through MS ISCSI initiator - IP addresses are not changing, would this cause any changes on the server side? Thanks, Darish.

2 1

Re: Can one change the number of disks in a raid group on the fly
by Brent Ellis 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

More backstory, I made a mistake when I was trying grow my aggregate and I am seeing if I can change it. Essentially I have two shelves attached to a fas3020c filer. I had a aggregate(aggr0) which was set to 14 disks per raid group with 1 raid group using the disks from the 1st shelf. and then I have 4 disks in the second shelf. I wanted to temporarily increase the size of my aggregate so I increased the size and I expanded aggr0 onto the disks from the second shelf. But then I realized I didn't change the raid group size. so now I have 1 raid group with 14 disks using raid_dp and a second group with 3 disks using raid_dp and a spare. That means for the second raid group I have only added a total of 1 disk of space while using 3 drives. It seems like a waste so I wanted to see if I could safely backtrack or if I have to stick with it and just fill out the rest of the shelf at some point. -Brent On Apr 3, 2007, at 3:54 PM, Nollman, Bill wrote: > Brent; > > Of course you can ! > > From FilerView - Go to Aggregates / Manage / Click on the aggregate > to modify / Click Modify / Next > You should see "RAID Group Size" and the current number of disks > per RG. > Change it from the drop down. For FC disk this can be up to 28. For > SATA up to 16 (with RAID-DP). > > Keep in mind that larger RG's will mean longer reconstruct time > when you lose a disk. > > And Adam's note about back filling is correct as well....but only > need to worry about that with more than 2 RG's. > > Bill Nollman > NetApp SE - Hartford, CT. > Cell: (860)-212-9466 > > > From: Brent Ellis [mailto:interi@bu.edu] > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:51 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Can one change the number of disks in a raid group on the fly > > Question about resizing raid groups. Can one change the number of > disks in a raid group on the fly in a netapp filer? I currently > have an aggregate with a single raid groups and I would like to add > another shelf. So as to reduce the amount of storage I lose can I > change the size of the raid group and grow the underlying raid for > the aggregate or do I have to start a new raid group? > > Brent Ellis > Computing Services Group > Boston University > > >

3 2

Snapmirror NTAP is at 20% constantly
by Steven Mandrake 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

Hi Guys, Any reason why CPU utilization on my snapmirror destination is always at 20%??? My production filer is much less than that. The Snapmirror only happens once per day. All other indicators seem idle. Here is a sample output: CPU NFS CIFS HTTP Net kB/s Disk kB/s Tape kB/s Cache in out read write read write age 22% 0 0 0 1 1 65 59 0 0 4 20% 0 0 0 1 0 121 120 0 0 4 26% 0 0 0 1 1 336 59 0 0 3 22% 0 0 0 1 1 2017 472 0 0 3 23% 0 0 0 1 0 2461 413 0 0 3 22% 0 0 0 1 0 2334 182 0 0 3 24% 0 0 0 1 1 1307 206 0 0 3 20% 0 0 0 1 1 61 59 0 0 3 22% 0 0 0 1 0 123 118 0 0 3 Another question -- Is there a way I can monitor utilization/performance of NVRAM and Memory? What other perf commands can I use other than sysstat? Thanks

3 2

Can one change the number of disks in a raid group on the fly
by Brent Ellis 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

Question about resizing raid groups. Can one change the number of disks in a raid group on the fly in a netapp filer? I currently have an aggregate with a single raid groups and I would like to add another shelf. So as to reduce the amount of storage I lose can I change the size of the raid group and grow the underlying raid for the aggregate or do I have to start a new raid group? Brent Ellis Computing Services Group Boston University

3 2

RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Ganjihal, Chetan 03 Apr '07

03 Apr '07

I think it would be important to know the state of the system(filer), the values set for different options, system utilization etc. If there is a perfstat output with stats gathered during the operation(file copy) being carried out, it will help understand the problem. cheers Chetan ________________________________ From: Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:59 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) Cc: Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers A quick crawl on NOW provided the following: http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs675 if CIFS performance is slow after investigating performance issues, modify the filer's CIFS negotiated buffer size. 1. Verify that hardware or software problems do not exist within the filer, network and client. 2. Record the CIFS negotiated buffer size by capturing the output of the filer command: options cifs.neg_buf_size 3. Enter the following filer commands: a. cifs terminate b. options cifs.neg_buf_size 16644 c. cifs restart 4. If the buffer size in step 3b does not improve performance, try the following buffer sizes: a. Use '17424'. Note: Starting with Data ONTAP 6.0.X, allow the buffer size to exceed 17424; therefore, upgrade to a release that fixes bug 33396 only if performance does not improve. b. Use '33472' for environments mixed with Windows NT and Windows 2000. c. Use '65340' for Windows 2000 only environments. 5. If performance remains slow: a. Re-confirm that hardware or software problems do not exist within the filer, network and client. b. Restore the original CIFS negotiated buffer size (refer to steps 2 and 3). c. During a performance interruption, capture a packet trace between the filer and Windows client. d. Send the packet trace to Network Appliance Technical Support for analysis. On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) wrote: I'm doing a straight drag and drop using UNC paths with a single 1.5gig zip file and a 2.2Gig binary File. If I add more streams (aka start more than one copy on more than one server the filer happily provides more bandwidth) From Windows server to windows server I get 500 Mbps From Windows server to a Netapp 6030 Filer running DOT 7.2.1 I get about 250 Mbps I've tried TCP windows size, Flow Control, LCAP, Static Link Aggregation, Singe port on the filer (no vif), straight crossover cable. From: Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers Typically, you shouldn't see any performance decrease - rather, you should get better performance. Are you seeing some sort of decrease? What I can point out: with some things (Excel\Word to be specific), MS will implement stuff that's not really documented for the file open\discovery which can cause problems, but I doubt that's what you are running into given the speed you are speaking of. Likewise, using Windows NLB (LB not HA) doesn't always go very well given the fact that it's not the best technology and sometimes can display interop problems with other vendors (not just NetApp). What exactly are you doing for your test? Glenn ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) 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

5 7

ontap gx
by grace rante 31 Mar '07

31 Mar '07

Heya, Any ontap gx users out there? im interested in checking out the coral/file striping/HPO feature of GX and just want to check here first if anybody already had a chance to play with HPO and if you guys have any feedbacks... thanks, graziee

2 1

Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Davies,Matt 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

Don't worry about it, I will try on Monday with new servers that have both broadcom and intel NICs in them and are what through out I get, are if that has any effect. Are the NICs in the servers you are testing with, inbuilt, PCI or PCI express ? And what manufacturer ? Cheers Matt -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: jack1729(a)gmail.com <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 22:19:26 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers srry.. zipped that part of your post :) The weird thing is that you are getting the same speed (low end) for server to server that I get to my filer 250Mbps.. but I get upwards of 500-600Mbps from server to server.. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 1:57 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers Did that, same speeds, sorry...... Matt -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: jack1729(a)gmail.com <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 21:50:27 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers can you take that same file and copy it from a server to a server on the same network etc? ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 1:16 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers In the interim, I decided to unbox and startup our new FAS270 and quickly set it up. With just a single nic I have taken a 500MB zip file, and copied from server A to the filer and from server A to another server. Both servers are running single Nics Peak rate was around 250Mb/s, average rate was around 130Mb/s to both the filer and the server. The filer is running 7.0.5 I have made no changes to TCP window size on either the servers or the filers, the servers are Win2k3 SP1. I also did the same test on our production FAS250 and got the same result, which is running 7.1 Sorry I haven’t been much help Cheers Matt From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) [mailto:Langdon.Lock@mayo.edu] Sent: 30 March 2007 20:40 To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers :) Already been down that path.. Heck I've gone single port, with a crossover cable.. same reuslts.. That's why I'm here.. to see if we're the only ones experiencing this, or if it's just what NetaApp does (I hope not ;) ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 12:38 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers Shame, that might have answered the problem. Have you tried just using 1 ethernet port on the filer ? Have you tried using ports on the same switch, I have seen some problems with cross stack etherchannels, usually if the stack isn’t connected correctly. The following command will give you the details. UKswitchstack#sh switch stack-ring speed Stack Ring Speed : 32G Stack Ring Configuration: Full Stack Ring Protocol : StackWise UKswitchstack# My new filer arrived today, but will try and reproduce on Monday But just so you know: After enabling QOS on cat3750, certain application (mostly bursty and TCP based) may experience significant performance degradation. This issue is resolved starting Cisco IOS 12.2(25)SEE1. With the changes in the new release, the following global config. commands are still required : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mls qos queue-set output 1 threshold 2 3200 3200 100 3200 mls qos queue-set output 1 threshold 3 3200 3200 100 3200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheers Matt From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) [mailto:Langdon.Lock@mayo.edu] Sent: 30 March 2007 20:17 To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers sorry, Yes I meant 3750. No QOS. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 11:47 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers I presume you mean the 3750 ? Is QoS enabled on the switch ? -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: Jack Lyons <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; Ganjihal, Chetan <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; Shane Garoutte <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 19:37:47 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers 2 Cisco 3950s cross connected in the back. Should be configed for LACP, 3 ports on one switch 3 ports on the other switch. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 1:34 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers May be a stupid question, but what network switch are you using ? Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Sent: 29 March 2007 21:00 To: slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers yes, that all looks true Aggregate is maxed out size of 39 disks Raid DP. I’ve also tried 10k FC drives, and 7.5k SATA drives. Same performance. no jumbo frames. No cifs tuning. can anyone else try this? take a large file and copy it from a windows server to a windows server. then copy the sam file from the same server to a netapp filer. you can use the nul trigger to really isolate network usage (doesn;t actually write the file) What Mbps do you get on each xfer? I get approx 500 mbps to a windows server, and 250 mbps to the filer. same file, same tcp window size, same server.. only delta is once to server once to filer. If you want to you can also do a read from the filer and the server to get the read performance. ________________________________ From: slinkymax0r [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 10:48 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > my previous posts mention that I'm running 7.2.1.. now I've updated to > 7.2.1.1 Snapshot of thie issue: User is running windows 2003. Throughput ramps up with multiple copies, just doesn't seem to "fill the pipe" with a single file copy operation. No network errors, TCP and lower level tuning on the stack hasn't improved the issue.* (Any Netdiag output to share?) No idea if CIFs buffer tuning has been done on the filer, per NetApp CIFS troubleshooting instructions. No info on Aggregate Layout or volume options (Might be helpful). No idea if jumbo frames are part of the mix. Accurate so far? Regards, Max > ________________________________ > > From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack1729@gmail.com] > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 3:42 AM > To: Ganjihal, Chetan > Cc: Shane Garoutte; Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); Glenn Walker; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > > > > Make sure that you don't have smb signing enabled, it was by default in > 7.0.1 but 7.0.2 later is was disabled by default. > > Ganjihal, Chetan wrote: >> I think it would be important to know the state of the system(filer), >> the values set for different options, system utilization etc. >> If there is a perfstat output with stats gathered during the >> operation(file copy) being carried out, it will help understand the >> problem. >> cheers >> Chetan >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:59 AM >> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) >> *Cc:* Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> *Subject:* Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >> >> A quick crawl on NOW provided the following: >> http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs675 >> >> if CIFS performance is slow after investigating performance issues, >> modify the filer's CIFS negotiated buffer size. >> >> 1. Verify that hardware or software problems do not exist within the >> filer, network and client. >> 2. Record the CIFS negotiated buffer size by capturing the output of >> the filer command: >> options cifs.neg_buf_size >> 3. Enter the following filer commands: >> a. cifs terminate >> b. options cifs.neg_buf_size 16644 >> c. cifs restart >> 4. If the buffer size in step 3b does not improve performance, try the >> following buffer sizes: >> a. Use '17424'. >> Note: >> Starting with Data ONTAP 6.0.X, allow the buffer size to exceed 17424; >> therefore, upgrade to a release that fixes bug 33396 only if >> performance does not improve. >> b. Use '33472' for environments mixed with Windows NT and Windows 2000. >> c. Use '65340' for Windows 2000 only environments. >> 5. If performance remains slow: >> a. Re-confirm that hardware or software problems do not exist within >> the filer, network and client. >> b. Restore the original CIFS negotiated buffer size (refer to steps 2 >> and 3). >> c. During a performance interruption, capture a packet trace between >> the filer and Windows client. >> d. Send the packet trace to Network Appliance Technical Support for >> analysis. >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) wrote: >> >>> I'm doing a straight drag and drop using UNC paths with a single >>> 1.5gig zip file and a 2.2Gig binary File. If I add more streams (aka >>> start more than one copy on more than one server the filer happily >>> provides more bandwidth) >>> >>> From Windows server to windows server I get 500 Mbps >>> >>> From Windows server to a Netapp 6030 Filer running DOT 7.2.1 I get >>> about 250 Mbps >>> >>> I've tried TCP windows size, Flow Control, LCAP, Static Link >>> Aggregation, Singe port on the filer (no vif), straight crossover >>> cable. >>> >>> *From:* Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM >>> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> >>> *Subject:* RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >>> >>> Typically, you shouldn't see any performance decrease - rather, you >>> should get better performance. >>> >>> Are you seeing some sort of decrease? >>> >>> What I can point out: with some things (Excel\Word to be specific), >>> MS will implement stuff that's not really documented for the file >>> open\discovery which can cause problems, but I doubt that's what you >>> are running into given the speed you are speaking of. Likewise, using >>> Windows NLB (LB not HA) doesn't always go very well given the fact >>> that it's not the best technology and sometimes can display interop >>> problems with other vendors (not just NetApp). >>> >>> What exactly are you doing for your test? >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Langdon, >>> Laughlin T. (Lock) >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM >>> *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@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 >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at help(a)generalatlantic.com. Thank You.

2 1

Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Davies,Matt 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

Did that, same speeds, sorry...... Matt -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: jack1729(a)gmail.com <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 21:50:27 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers can you take that same file and copy it from a server to a server on the same network etc? ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 1:16 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers In the interim, I decided to unbox and startup our new FAS270 and quickly set it up. With just a single nic I have taken a 500MB zip file, and copied from server A to the filer and from server A to another server. Both servers are running single Nics Peak rate was around 250Mb/s, average rate was around 130Mb/s to both the filer and the server. The filer is running 7.0.5 I have made no changes to TCP window size on either the servers or the filers, the servers are Win2k3 SP1. I also did the same test on our production FAS250 and got the same result, which is running 7.1 Sorry I haven’t been much help Cheers Matt From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) [mailto:Langdon.Lock@mayo.edu] Sent: 30 March 2007 20:40 To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers :) Already been down that path.. Heck I've gone single port, with a crossover cable.. same reuslts.. That's why I'm here.. to see if we're the only ones experiencing this, or if it's just what NetaApp does (I hope not ;) ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 12:38 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers Shame, that might have answered the problem. Have you tried just using 1 ethernet port on the filer ? Have you tried using ports on the same switch, I have seen some problems with cross stack etherchannels, usually if the stack isn’t connected correctly. The following command will give you the details. UKswitchstack#sh switch stack-ring speed Stack Ring Speed : 32G Stack Ring Configuration: Full Stack Ring Protocol : StackWise UKswitchstack# My new filer arrived today, but will try and reproduce on Monday But just so you know: After enabling QOS on cat3750, certain application (mostly bursty and TCP based) may experience significant performance degradation. This issue is resolved starting Cisco IOS 12.2(25)SEE1. With the changes in the new release, the following global config. commands are still required : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ mls qos queue-set output 1 threshold 2 3200 3200 100 3200 mls qos queue-set output 1 threshold 3 3200 3200 100 3200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Cheers Matt From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) [mailto:Langdon.Lock@mayo.edu] Sent: 30 March 2007 20:17 To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers sorry, Yes I meant 3750. No QOS. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Fri 3/30/2007 11:47 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: jack1729(a)gmail.com; chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com; sgaroutte(a)gmail.com; ggwalker(a)mindspring.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers I presume you mean the 3750 ? Is QoS enabled on the switch ? -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: Jack Lyons <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; Ganjihal, Chetan <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; Shane Garoutte <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 19:37:47 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers 2 Cisco 3950s cross connected in the back. Should be configed for LACP, 3 ports on one switch 3 ports on the other switch. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 1:34 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers May be a stupid question, but what network switch are you using ? Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Sent: 29 March 2007 21:00 To: slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers yes, that all looks true Aggregate is maxed out size of 39 disks Raid DP. I’ve also tried 10k FC drives, and 7.5k SATA drives. Same performance. no jumbo frames. No cifs tuning. can anyone else try this? take a large file and copy it from a windows server to a windows server. then copy the sam file from the same server to a netapp filer. you can use the nul trigger to really isolate network usage (doesn;t actually write the file) What Mbps do you get on each xfer? I get approx 500 mbps to a windows server, and 250 mbps to the filer. same file, same tcp window size, same server.. only delta is once to server once to filer. If you want to you can also do a read from the filer and the server to get the read performance. ________________________________ From: slinkymax0r [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 10:48 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > my previous posts mention that I'm running 7.2.1.. now I've updated to > 7.2.1.1 Snapshot of thie issue: User is running windows 2003. Throughput ramps up with multiple copies, just doesn't seem to "fill the pipe" with a single file copy operation. No network errors, TCP and lower level tuning on the stack hasn't improved the issue.* (Any Netdiag output to share?) No idea if CIFs buffer tuning has been done on the filer, per NetApp CIFS troubleshooting instructions. No info on Aggregate Layout or volume options (Might be helpful). No idea if jumbo frames are part of the mix. Accurate so far? Regards, Max > ________________________________ > > From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack1729@gmail.com] > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 3:42 AM > To: Ganjihal, Chetan > Cc: Shane Garoutte; Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); Glenn Walker; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > > > > Make sure that you don't have smb signing enabled, it was by default in > 7.0.1 but 7.0.2 later is was disabled by default. > > Ganjihal, Chetan wrote: >> I think it would be important to know the state of the system(filer), >> the values set for different options, system utilization etc. >> If there is a perfstat output with stats gathered during the >> operation(file copy) being carried out, it will help understand the >> problem. >> cheers >> Chetan >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:59 AM >> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) >> *Cc:* Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> *Subject:* Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >> >> A quick crawl on NOW provided the following: >> http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs675 >> >> if CIFS performance is slow after investigating performance issues, >> modify the filer's CIFS negotiated buffer size. >> >> 1. Verify that hardware or software problems do not exist within the >> filer, network and client. >> 2. Record the CIFS negotiated buffer size by capturing the output of >> the filer command: >> options cifs.neg_buf_size >> 3. Enter the following filer commands: >> a. cifs terminate >> b. options cifs.neg_buf_size 16644 >> c. cifs restart >> 4. If the buffer size in step 3b does not improve performance, try the >> following buffer sizes: >> a. Use '17424'. >> Note: >> Starting with Data ONTAP 6.0.X, allow the buffer size to exceed 17424; >> therefore, upgrade to a release that fixes bug 33396 only if >> performance does not improve. >> b. Use '33472' for environments mixed with Windows NT and Windows 2000. >> c. Use '65340' for Windows 2000 only environments. >> 5. If performance remains slow: >> a. Re-confirm that hardware or software problems do not exist within >> the filer, network and client. >> b. Restore the original CIFS negotiated buffer size (refer to steps 2 >> and 3). >> c. During a performance interruption, capture a packet trace between >> the filer and Windows client. >> d. Send the packet trace to Network Appliance Technical Support for >> analysis. >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) wrote: >> >>> I'm doing a straight drag and drop using UNC paths with a single >>> 1.5gig zip file and a 2.2Gig binary File. If I add more streams (aka >>> start more than one copy on more than one server the filer happily >>> provides more bandwidth) >>> >>> From Windows server to windows server I get 500 Mbps >>> >>> From Windows server to a Netapp 6030 Filer running DOT 7.2.1 I get >>> about 250 Mbps >>> >>> I've tried TCP windows size, Flow Control, LCAP, Static Link >>> Aggregation, Singe port on the filer (no vif), straight crossover >>> cable. >>> >>> *From:* Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM >>> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> >>> *Subject:* RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >>> >>> Typically, you shouldn't see any performance decrease - rather, you >>> should get better performance. >>> >>> Are you seeing some sort of decrease? >>> >>> What I can point out: with some things (Excel\Word to be specific), >>> MS will implement stuff that's not really documented for the file >>> open\discovery which can cause problems, but I doubt that's what you >>> are running into given the speed you are speaking of. Likewise, using >>> Windows NLB (LB not HA) doesn't always go very well given the fact >>> that it's not the best technology and sometimes can display interop >>> problems with other vendors (not just NetApp). >>> >>> What exactly are you doing for your test? >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Langdon, >>> Laughlin T. (Lock) >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM >>> *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@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 >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at help(a)generalatlantic.com. Thank You.

2 1

Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Davies,Matt 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

I presume you mean the 3750 ? Is QoS enabled on the switch ? -----Original Message----- From: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) <Langdon.Lock(a)mayo.edu> To: Davies,Matt; slinkywizard(a)integra.net <slinkywizard(a)integra.net> CC: Jack Lyons <jack1729(a)gmail.com>; Ganjihal, Chetan <chetan.ganjihal(a)netapp.com>; Shane Garoutte <sgaroutte(a)gmail.com>; Glenn Walker <ggwalker(a)mindspring.com>; toasters(a)mathworks.com <toasters(a)mathworks.com> Sent: Fri Mar 30 19:37:47 2007 Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers 2 Cisco 3950s cross connected in the back. Should be configed for LACP, 3 ports on one switch 3 ports on the other switch. ________________________________ From: Davies,Matt [mailto:MDAVIES@generalatlantic.com] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 1:34 PM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers May be a stupid question, but what network switch are you using ? Cheers Matt ________________________________ From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Sent: 29 March 2007 21:00 To: slinkywizard(a)integra.net Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers yes, that all looks true Aggregate is maxed out size of 39 disks Raid DP. I’ve also tried 10k FC drives, and 7.5k SATA drives. Same performance. no jumbo frames. No cifs tuning. can anyone else try this? take a large file and copy it from a windows server to a windows server. then copy the sam file from the same server to a netapp filer. you can use the nul trigger to really isolate network usage (doesn;t actually write the file) What Mbps do you get on each xfer? I get approx 500 mbps to a windows server, and 250 mbps to the filer. same file, same tcp window size, same server.. only delta is once to server once to filer. If you want to you can also do a read from the filer and the server to get the read performance. ________________________________ From: slinkymax0r [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 10:48 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > my previous posts mention that I'm running 7.2.1.. now I've updated to > 7.2.1.1 Snapshot of thie issue: User is running windows 2003. Throughput ramps up with multiple copies, just doesn't seem to "fill the pipe" with a single file copy operation. No network errors, TCP and lower level tuning on the stack hasn't improved the issue.* (Any Netdiag output to share?) No idea if CIFs buffer tuning has been done on the filer, per NetApp CIFS troubleshooting instructions. No info on Aggregate Layout or volume options (Might be helpful). No idea if jumbo frames are part of the mix. Accurate so far? Regards, Max > ________________________________ > > From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack1729@gmail.com] > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 3:42 AM > To: Ganjihal, Chetan > Cc: Shane Garoutte; Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); Glenn Walker; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > > > > Make sure that you don't have smb signing enabled, it was by default in > 7.0.1 but 7.0.2 later is was disabled by default. > > Ganjihal, Chetan wrote: >> I think it would be important to know the state of the system(filer), >> the values set for different options, system utilization etc. >> If there is a perfstat output with stats gathered during the >> operation(file copy) being carried out, it will help understand the >> problem. >> cheers >> Chetan >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:59 AM >> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) >> *Cc:* Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> *Subject:* Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >> >> A quick crawl on NOW provided the following: >> http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs675 >> >> if CIFS performance is slow after investigating performance issues, >> modify the filer's CIFS negotiated buffer size. >> >> 1. Verify that hardware or software problems do not exist within the >> filer, network and client. >> 2. Record the CIFS negotiated buffer size by capturing the output of >> the filer command: >> options cifs.neg_buf_size >> 3. Enter the following filer commands: >> a. cifs terminate >> b. options cifs.neg_buf_size 16644 >> c. cifs restart >> 4. If the buffer size in step 3b does not improve performance, try the >> following buffer sizes: >> a. Use '17424'. >> Note: >> Starting with Data ONTAP 6.0.X, allow the buffer size to exceed 17424; >> therefore, upgrade to a release that fixes bug 33396 only if >> performance does not improve. >> b. Use '33472' for environments mixed with Windows NT and Windows 2000. >> c. Use '65340' for Windows 2000 only environments. >> 5. If performance remains slow: >> a. Re-confirm that hardware or software problems do not exist within >> the filer, network and client. >> b. Restore the original CIFS negotiated buffer size (refer to steps 2 >> and 3). >> c. During a performance interruption, capture a packet trace between >> the filer and Windows client. >> d. Send the packet trace to Network Appliance Technical Support for >> analysis. >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) wrote: >> >>> I'm doing a straight drag and drop using UNC paths with a single >>> 1.5gig zip file and a 2.2Gig binary File. If I add more streams (aka >>> start more than one copy on more than one server the filer happily >>> provides more bandwidth) >>> >>> From Windows server to windows server I get 500 Mbps >>> >>> From Windows server to a Netapp 6030 Filer running DOT 7.2.1 I get >>> about 250 Mbps >>> >>> I've tried TCP windows size, Flow Control, LCAP, Static Link >>> Aggregation, Singe port on the filer (no vif), straight crossover >>> cable. >>> >>> *From:* Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM >>> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> >>> *Subject:* RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >>> >>> Typically, you shouldn't see any performance decrease - rather, you >>> should get better performance. >>> >>> Are you seeing some sort of decrease? >>> >>> What I can point out: with some things (Excel\Word to be specific), >>> MS will implement stuff that's not really documented for the file >>> open\discovery which can cause problems, but I doubt that's what you >>> are running into given the speed you are speaking of. Likewise, using >>> Windows NLB (LB not HA) doesn't always go very well given the fact >>> that it's not the best technology and sometimes can display interop >>> problems with other vendors (not just NetApp). >>> >>> What exactly are you doing for your test? >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Langdon, >>> Laughlin T. (Lock) >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM >>> *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@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 >>> >>> >> > > > ____________________________________________________________ This e-mail (including all attachments) is confidential and may be privileged. It is for the exclusive use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately at help(a)generalatlantic.com. Thank You.

2 5

RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

yes, that all looks true Aggregate is maxed out size of 39 disks Raid DP. I've also tried 10k FC drives, and 7.5k SATA drives. Same performance. no jumbo frames. No cifs tuning. can anyone else try this? take a large file and copy it from a windows server to a windows server. then copy the sam file from the same server to a netapp filer. you can use the nul trigger to really isolate network usage (doesn;t actually write the file) What Mbps do you get on each xfer? I get approx 500 mbps to a windows server, and 250 mbps to the filer. same file, same tcp window size, same server.. only delta is once to server once to filer. If you want to you can also do a read from the filer and the server to get the read performance. ________________________________ From: slinkymax0r [mailto:slinkywizard@integra.net] Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 10:48 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Cc: Jack Lyons; Ganjihal, Chetan; Shane Garoutte; Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > my previous posts mention that I'm running 7.2.1.. now I've updated to > 7.2.1.1 Snapshot of thie issue: User is running windows 2003. Throughput ramps up with multiple copies, just doesn't seem to "fill the pipe" with a single file copy operation. No network errors, TCP and lower level tuning on the stack hasn't improved the issue.* (Any Netdiag output to share?) No idea if CIFs buffer tuning has been done on the filer, per NetApp CIFS troubleshooting instructions. No info on Aggregate Layout or volume options (Might be helpful). No idea if jumbo frames are part of the mix. Accurate so far? Regards, Max > ________________________________ > > From: Jack Lyons [mailto:jack1729@gmail.com] > Sent: Thu 3/29/2007 3:42 AM > To: Ganjihal, Chetan > Cc: Shane Garoutte; Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); Glenn Walker; > toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers > > > > Make sure that you don't have smb signing enabled, it was by default in > 7.0.1 but 7.0.2 later is was disabled by default. > > Ganjihal, Chetan wrote: >> I think it would be important to know the state of the system(filer), >> the values set for different options, system utilization etc. >> If there is a perfstat output with stats gathered during the >> operation(file copy) being carried out, it will help understand the >> problem. >> cheers >> Chetan >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> *From:* Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 29, 2007 12:59 AM >> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) >> *Cc:* Glenn Walker; toasters(a)mathworks.com >> *Subject:* Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >> >> A quick crawl on NOW provided the following: >> http://now.netapp.com/Knowledgebase/solutionarea.asp?id=ntapcs675 >> >> if CIFS performance is slow after investigating performance issues, >> modify the filer's CIFS negotiated buffer size. >> >> 1. Verify that hardware or software problems do not exist within the >> filer, network and client. >> 2. Record the CIFS negotiated buffer size by capturing the output of >> the filer command: >> options cifs.neg_buf_size >> 3. Enter the following filer commands: >> a. cifs terminate >> b. options cifs.neg_buf_size 16644 >> c. cifs restart >> 4. If the buffer size in step 3b does not improve performance, try the >> following buffer sizes: >> a. Use '17424'. >> Note: >> Starting with Data ONTAP 6.0.X, allow the buffer size to exceed 17424; >> therefore, upgrade to a release that fixes bug 33396 only if >> performance does not improve. >> b. Use '33472' for environments mixed with Windows NT and Windows 2000. >> c. Use '65340' for Windows 2000 only environments. >> 5. If performance remains slow: >> a. Re-confirm that hardware or software problems do not exist within >> the filer, network and client. >> b. Restore the original CIFS negotiated buffer size (refer to steps 2 >> and 3). >> c. During a performance interruption, capture a packet trace between >> the filer and Windows client. >> d. Send the packet trace to Network Appliance Technical Support for >> analysis. >> >> >> On Mar 28, 2007, at 8:33 AM, Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)) wrote: >> >>> I'm doing a straight drag and drop using UNC paths with a single >>> 1.5gig zip file and a 2.2Gig binary File. If I add more streams (aka >>> start more than one copy on more than one server the filer happily >>> provides more bandwidth) >>> >>> From Windows server to windows server I get 500 Mbps >>> >>> From Windows server to a Netapp 6030 Filer running DOT 7.2.1 I get >>> about 250 Mbps >>> >>> I've tried TCP windows size, Flow Control, LCAP, Static Link >>> Aggregation, Singe port on the filer (no vif), straight crossover >>> cable. >>> >>> *From:* Glenn Walker [mailto:ggwalker@mindspring.com] >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 5:15 PM >>> *To:* Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock); toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> <mailto:toasters@mathworks.com> >>> *Subject:* RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers >>> >>> Typically, you shouldn't see any performance decrease - rather, you >>> should get better performance. >>> >>> Are you seeing some sort of decrease? >>> >>> What I can point out: with some things (Excel\Word to be specific), >>> MS will implement stuff that's not really documented for the file >>> open\discovery which can cause problems, but I doubt that's what you >>> are running into given the speed you are speaking of. Likewise, using >>> Windows NLB (LB not HA) doesn't always go very well given the fact >>> that it's not the best technology and sometimes can display interop >>> problems with other vendors (not just NetApp). >>> >>> What exactly are you doing for your test? >>> >>> Glenn >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com >>> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Langdon, >>> Laughlin T. (Lock) >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM >>> *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com <mailto:toasters@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 >>> >>> >> > > >

3 3

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