Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 11:56:12 -0700 (PDT) From: Jon Dama <jd@ugcs.caltech.edu> To: Skylar Thompson <skylar@cs.earlham.edu> Cc: Don Lewis <truckman@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Weird NFS problems Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.53.0505311153250.2472@zloty.ugcs.caltech.edu> In-Reply-To: <429C867A.5040909@cs.earlham.edu> References: <200505270711.j4R7BTMf078204@gw.catspoiler.org> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0505270145160.640@ngwee.ugcs.caltech.edu> <429C867A.5040909@cs.earlham.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, but surely you weren't bridging gigabit and 100Mbit before? Did you try my suggestion about binding the IP address of the NFS server to the 100Mbit side? -Jon On Tue, 31 May 2005, Skylar Thompson wrote: > Jon Dama wrote: > > >Try switching to TCP NFS. > > > >a 100MBit interface cannot keep up with a 1GBit interface in a bridge > >configuration. Therefore, in the long run, at full-bore you'd expect to > >drop 9 out of every 10 ethernet frames. > > > >MTU is 1500 therefore 1K works (it fits in one frame), 2K doesn't (your > >NFS transactions are split across frames, one of which will almost > >certainly be dropped, it's UDP so the loss of one frame invalidates the > >whole transaction). > > > >This is the same reason you can't use UDP with a block size greater than > >MTU to use NFS over your DSL or some such arrangement. > > > >Incidentially, this has nothing to do with FreeBSD. So if using TCP > >mounts solves your problem, don't expect Solaris NFS to magically make the > >UDP case work... > > > > > > The thing is that UDP NFS has been working for us for years. A big part > of our work is performance analysis, so to change our network > architecture will invalidate a large part of our data. > > -- > -- Skylar Thompson (skylar@cs.earlham.edu) > -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.53.0505311153250.2472>