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