On Tue 11 Jan, 2000, "Michael S. Keller" mkeller@mail.wcg.net wrote:
tkaczma@gryf.net wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Michael S. Keller wrote:
I have one machine tightened to 512-byte transfers because of poor performance at bigger transfer sizes.
I think you really have to look into your network.
There's not much to check. It goes in one switch port and out another on the same switch. The interfaces show no errors. I do have the filer trunked (EtherChannel) and my news clients have hand-tuned MAC addresses to reduce contention, since the switch does "dumb" switching based on MAC addresses instead of loads.
There's still something rotten in the state of Denmark if you're having to restrict the packet size so very tightly.
The increase in interrupt servicing and buffer-handling at either end, relative to even ethernet mtu sized packets is about 3-fold, so seeing *increased* performance as a result is indicative of something seriously wrong somewhere in there.
Out of interest, can you say what clients, what switches and what settings you're using in each? Just in case any of us have seen problems with those vendors before it might be worth enumerating exactly what client box, interface, OS and patch levels (within reason, hme/wfe, ip, udp, tcp, rpc, nfs, etc. patches) you're using. Ditto for switch, blades, firmware etc..
You said earlier that you're using Sol2.6, and the trunking suggests you're using qfe's, presumably in UEx000 boxes, but I'm sticking my neck out here.
You have piqued my curiosity though!
-- End of excerpt from "Michael S. Keller"