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@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@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@mathworks.com
>> [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Langdon,
>> Laughlin T. (Lock)
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 27, 2007 2:33 PM
>> *To:* toasters@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
>>
>>
>