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@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@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@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@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@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