toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

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

bug #1287 problems with netgroup and rw access list
by Kerry Herschel 30 Mar '07

30 Mar '07

Hi, Has anyone had problems with using a netgroup name in a rw access list in an exports file? I just found bug #1287. I am using a netgroup file on the filer to define names to use in the exports file currently but I have had some problems. I am running DOT 7.0.3. It would be a real drawback if I can't use a netgroup name for rw access. Thanks, Kerry

4 4

RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Dean, Phil (ITO) 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

Just one question, Are you sure that the NIC duplex settings are correct, your not using auto on a port switch that is set as 100/Full? Also have you checked that you are not getting network errors on the filer side. Regards, Phil -----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Glenn Walker Sent: Thursday, 29 March 2007 10:46 AM To: Shane Garoutte Cc: Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)); toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers MS's implementation of NFS? Less overhead? Highly doubtful ;) I'm pretty sure that MS would make CIFS faster by making NFS slower... ________________________________ From: Shane Garoutte [mailto:sgaroutte@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:28 PM To: Glenn Walker Cc: Langdon, Laughlin T. ((Lock)); toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers On Mar 28, 2007, at 5:04 PM, Glenn Walker wrote: As for the SMB vs CIFS thing, they're essentially the same. If you're using Windows, you're using CIFS (unless you've loaded services for unix, but I'm pretty sure you'd realize if you were utilizing NFS by accident). Due to the fact that it would be faster with less overhead? Oh wait, this is windows... nm ;) jk ************** IMPORTANT MESSAGE ***************************** This e-mail message is intended only for the addressee(s) and contains information which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please advise the sender by return email, do not use or disclose the contents, and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Unless specifically indicated, this email does not constitute formal advice or commitment by the sender or the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (ABN 48 123 123 124) or its subsidiaries. We can be contacted through our web site: commbank.com.au. If you no longer wish to receive commercial electronic messages from us, please reply to this e-mail by typing Unsubscribe in the subject line. **************************************************************

2 1

RE: CIFS share on a Unix filesystem and Office 2003
by Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

I already have SecureShare in place. It's a great tool. I meant to put the permissions data in the last message. They are as expected. Mike -----Original Message----- From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:56 AM To: Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: CIFS share on a Unix filesystem and Office 2003 Get the SecureShare Access: http://now.netapp.com/NOW/download/tools/ssaccess/ It should run on any MS platform. If you have not used it, after you install it (which takes seconds) whenever you right-click on a file that is on a Filer and select properties, you will get another tab...SecureShare. Here you can see UID/GID and all unix perms including sticky bits and so forth. If the permissions allow, you can also change the UNIX perms. This can also be used in a NTFS qtree, but everything is grayed out. I also do not think MS will help. Even though it is likely an OFFICE problem, Work with NetApp for a solution. MS will not change their application. --tmac On 3/29/07, Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 <michael.miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil> wrote: > I also think it is an Office issue, just wanted to see whatever one > else thought before I fought for a Microsoft trouble call. > > One part I forgot in the original message is that all tests were done > on the same file, in the same location, with the same Office 2003 load > and by the same user(me) with domain admin and root rights. The only > change was the system the test was done on. > > Mike > > > -----Original Message----- > From: tmac [mailto:tmacmd@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:10 AM > To: Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 > Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: CIFS share on a Unix filesystem and Office 2003 > > > I am not positive, but this could be an issue with OFFICE. > > MS apps routinely create a temp file (a tilde file) and when you save, > it deletes the original and copies the tilde file into its' place. > > This wrecks havoc with a NetApp using MIXED or UNIX qtrees. Since the > original file is gone, the new file is written with new permissions. > > Check the UNIX perms on the file and see if they are what you expect. > > Maybe....you have you user mapping setup so your account maps to root? > Then your file could be written with UID 0, and then you may not be > able to access from Windows. > > In the NTFS side, even though the UID is root, there is also an ACE > that shows you as the owner (not root). > > There is a fix in ONTAP, although I do not think it was introduced > until 7.2. I think the option is "cifs.preserve_unix_security" > > > > On 3/29/07, Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 > <michael.miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know if anyone can help but I thought I would ask. > > > > We host home directories and common file storage on a FAS960 running > > OnTap 7.0.3 with CIFS and NFS licenses. We use NTFS shares for > > Windows > > > roaming profiles but everything else is a Unix filesystem shared by > > CIFS and NFS. > > > > We had a problem show up when using Office 2003 with the Document > > Image Writer feature that I have not been able to track down. > > > > Using XP or 2003 systems I can print to the Document Image Writer > > printer, open the file it creates, modify and then save the file > > with no problems. > > > > On a 2000 Pro system I can create the file but I can not modify it > > after that from the Office 2003 MDI application. Whenever the file > > is opened you can make changes but you can not save the changes and > > there > > > are no errors or warnings generated. If the file is on a NTFS > > filesystem (NetApp or > > otherwise) you can make all of the changes you want. It is also > possible to > > create the file on the NFS filesystem, copy it to a NTFS filesystem, > make > > and save changes and then copy it back to the NFS filesystem > > properly. > > > > I have done all of the normal research and have even done packet > > captures. Nothing indicates what the issue might be. Any thoughts or > > hints? > > > > Thanks > > Mike Miller > > General Dynamics Information Technology > > Michael.Miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil Michael.Miller(a)gdit.com > > > > > -- > --tmac > > RedHat Certified Engineer > -- --tmac RedHat Certified Engineer

1 0

CIFS share on a Unix filesystem and Office 2003
by Miller, Michael CTR USTRANSCOM J2 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

I don't know if anyone can help but I thought I would ask. We host home directories and common file storage on a FAS960 running OnTap 7.0.3 with CIFS and NFS licenses. We use NTFS shares for Windows roaming profiles but everything else is a Unix filesystem shared by CIFS and NFS. We had a problem show up when using Office 2003 with the Document Image Writer feature that I have not been able to track down. Using XP or 2003 systems I can print to the Document Image Writer printer, open the file it creates, modify and then save the file with no problems. On a 2000 Pro system I can create the file but I can not modify it after that from the Office 2003 MDI application. Whenever the file is opened you can make changes but you can not save the changes and there are no errors or warnings generated. If the file is on a NTFS filesystem (NetApp or otherwise) you can make all of the changes you want. It is also possible to create the file on the NFS filesystem, copy it to a NTFS filesystem, make and save changes and then copy it back to the NFS filesystem properly. I have done all of the normal research and have even done packet captures. Nothing indicates what the issue might be. Any thoughts or hints? Thanks Mike Miller General Dynamics Information Technology Michael.Miller.ctr(a)ustranscom.mil Michael.Miller(a)gdit.com

2 2

CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) 29 Mar '07

29 Mar '07

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

6 15

Re: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Bryan_West＠shamrockfoods.com 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

It could be your network cards we experienced the same issue years ago and replacing the network cards on our windows servers solved it. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Keating" [pkeating(a)bank-banque-canada.ca] Sent: 03/28/2007 08:58 AM To: "Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock)" <Langdon.Lock(a)Mayo.EDU>;"Brosseau, Paul" <Paul.Brosseau(a)netapp.com>;<toasters(a)mathworks.com> Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers Windows *is* CIFS. Even many MS docs have dropped references to SMB, or will say something like "...CIFS (formerly SMB)...." 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 11:34 AM 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 ==================================================================================== 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.

2 1

RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Paul Keating 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

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.

2 1

RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
by Paul Keating 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

Windows *is* CIFS. Even many MS docs have dropped references to SMB, or will say something like "...CIFS (formerly SMB)...." 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 11:34 AM 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 ==================================================================================== 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.

1 0

Method to exercise tape drive?
by Darren Dunham 28 Mar '07

28 Mar '07

Sometimes when troubleshooting backups I want to see if the host can drive data to a tape drive at high speed without involving a filesystem or backup software or the like. I've got some slow NDMP backups on some filers that have fiber-attached LTO-3 drives. At the moment I'm assuming that the contents of the filesystem make it difficult to drive the tapes at high speed, but it would be nice to have another data point that would show that the local drive is or is not behaving properly. Is there any way to have the filer send data to the drive without actually invoking an NDMP backup or running a 'dump'? On another host I might mount a scratch tape and run 'dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/tape' with an appropriate block size and count. I see a 'dd', but I don't know of a data source like /dev/zero. Is this or something similar possible? Thanks. -- Darren Dunham ddunham(a)taos.com Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >

2 1

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