Sorry used to talking in the windows world :)
The files are being copied using command line parameters, but drag and drop in explorer garners about the same results Copy /b <filename_local> <location>
Reads are faster than writes but both are slower server<->filer than server<->server
I'm a little confused on the CIFS/SMB discussion. I assumed I was using SMB, but since it seems Windows CIFS/SMB are the same thing I don't know. Is there a way to find out for sure?
I've rebooted the servers to make sure it's not a cache issue.
-----Original Message----- From: Max Reid [mailto:max.reid@saikonetworks.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 9:39 AM To: Langdon, Laughlin T. (Lock) Cc: Glenn Walker; toasters@mathworks.com Subject: RE: CIFS overhead with Netapp Filers
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)
Are you using Windows explorer to make the copy? Your statement regarding drag and drop indicates that you're using explorer, but I'd like to confirm.
What version of Windows are you running?
Is performance slow with just writes? or Read / writes?
Native CIFS or NetBIOS/SMB over TCP/IP?
Regards, Max
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 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 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