well, it was already an NFS-discuss list message. Someone else added dtrace-discuss to it. I have already noted this to a degree on zfs-discuss, but it seems to be mainly a NFS specific issue at this stage.
On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler at sun.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Joe Little wrote: > > On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <spencer.shepler at sun.com> wrote: > > >On Fri, Joe Little wrote: > > >> Well, I used the dtrace script used here. The NFS implementation > > >> (server) is Solaris 11 B38, and the client and the RHEL linux > > >> revision, which doesn't have this problem going through other > > >> SAN-based NAS (NetApp, EMC, etc.. even iSCSI). I previously setup a > > >> Linux box as an iscsi initiator, XFS, and Linux's less than stellar > > >> kNFS server revision, and did not see this interaction. Thus, if > there > > >> are any thread issues, its likely on Solaris' end or there is > > >> particularly bad interaction with linux clients if and only if the > > >> solaris backend is iSCSI. That latter doesn't make sense. > > > > > >It is a server response time issue as you have demonstrated with data. > > >The server in the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path is not responding as quickly > > >as other combinations and for this particular application, the overall > > >throughput is subpar. > > > > > >Focusing on the disparity found to understand why the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI > > >combo is not working well seems like the correct path. > > > > > > > That's where I'm at a loss. Has the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path been tested by > > Sun at all? > > I don't know and this seems like a good point to move the > discussion to zfs-discuss and nfs-discuss to see if there > is additional input. > > Spencer > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/nfs-discuss/attachments/20060505/b061d5d8/attachment.html>
