From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Raphael Clifford Subject: jumbo frames and performance Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:12:17 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3D0E3491.10309@rockefeller.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Received: from mail.rockefeller.edu ([129.85.1.21]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17K1vG-0004se-00 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:12:18 -0700 Received: from rockefeller.edu (willa.rockefeller.edu [129.85.52.204]) by mail.rockefeller.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5HJCEo26665 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:12:14 -0400 (EDT) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net 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: Would you mind explaining the two performance points below a bit further and maybe putting them in the FAQ? They look very interesting. Regarding the "sync" option, why does not having it incur extra costs at the server? Cheers, Raphael >It also looks like you are not using jumbo frames, which >Trond has mentioned as a big performance boost for tcp in >100 baseT full duplex environments. > >Also, since you're using 0.3.3 utils, I assume you are >using sync exports; otherwise there are costs at the server >which are hidden from the benchmark data. > >Tom > > > _______________________________________________________________ Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs