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
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