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