From: "Lever, Charles" Subject: RE: performance question Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:45:24 -0800 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E07D55480@black.eng.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: Return-path: Received: from mx01.netapp.com ([198.95.226.53]) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19075v-0001gn-00 for ; Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:45:31 -0800 To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: hi jp- > What is possible for me to improve without moving to Gig-Ethernet? >=20 > I've tried both TCP and UDP NFS. rsize & wsize or=20 > 1024,1400,4096,8192. The larger > two have horrid performance due to packet fragmentation. Like=20 > magnitudes worse. > 1024, 1400, UDP and TCP all have similar performance for me. this sounds like a network issue. you should use a network performance tool (like iPerf) to measure performance between your client and server, and try to rectify any problems you find there, before you work on NFS performance. > Also, is it possible to clear the counters in nfsstat? only via a client reboot. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs