UNSOLVED

wilbur1

updated

14 years ago

W

wilbur1

7 Posts

0

6072

November 19th, 2007 05:00

poor performance cifs

Hi,

I have a ns83 integrated. A Host Windows 2003 access to 100 FS CIFS. The write and read performance are poor (2 mb/s)
I have hosts Solaris connected to FS NFS. The R/W operations are good (35 mb/s)

The interface Lan is fixed to 1000 FD on the NS83 and cisco swith.

NFS and CIFS are bound on the same interface Lan.

Thank you
  • Rainer_EMC

    6 Operator

    8645 Posts

    800

    0

    Posted November 19th, 2007 07:00

    sounds strange

    I would first verify that the network is indeed good.

    one simple way to do that is using ftp - a simple protocol that you can also compare the results between Windows and Unix.

    If you already have CIFS configured you should be able to just ftp to the data mover using user.domain as the login name and the CIFS password
    If not just create a local test user with /nas/sbin/server_user server_2 -add -passwd

    If your ftp read performance differs vastly from the write performance you do have a network problem.

    then you can see if there maybe is a performance difference between the WIndows and the Unix file systems.
  • Rainer_EMC

    6 Operator

    8645 Posts

    800

    0

    Posted November 20th, 2007 05:00

    I suggest to open a case with support then
  • wilbur1

    7 Posts

    800

    0

    Posted November 20th, 2007 05:00

    The network seems to be clean.

    Unix performances are 12 x greater than CIFS performances.

    For CIFS
    I have used two differents windows hosts to compare the cifs r/w perf, that are the sames.
  • wilbur1

    7 Posts

    800

    0

    Posted November 21st, 2007 00:00

    A case is opened.

    But no response
  • RRR

    6 Operator

    5739 Posts

    800

    0

    Posted November 21st, 2007 05:00

    Response times are related to severity. You'll get a response, don't worry.
  • FresnoRed

    90 Posts

    799

    0

    Posted November 26th, 2007 15:00

    The first thing I would check is that the speed of the IP port indeed does match the port speed of the switch/router. Way too many times the auto/auto setting results in the host getting a random configuration like 100 simplex while the port thinks it 1000 duplex. This can result in (believe it or not) the ability to ping and send small files but real slow transfer of larger files. We've just standardized on using fixed speeds wherever we can, usually the switches allow this, and only use auto on the hosts when we can't fix the speed.

    Forget science, make it work!
  • jaygriffin

    15 Posts

    799

    0

    Posted January 7th, 2008 12:00

    What kind of switches do you have?
    Are you using IP Telephony?
  • wilbur1

    7 Posts

    758

    0

    Posted February 4th, 2008 08:00

    Yes, TOIP is implemented on the network.
  • Rainer_EMC

    6 Operator

    8645 Posts

    758

    0

    Posted February 4th, 2008 12:00

    I think there was a problem with some Cisco switches / modules and the QoS normally setup for Telephony

    It should affect NFS as well though - at least you should see retransmits
  • mssqadri

    8 Posts

    691

    1

    Posted June 3rd, 2010 23:00

    Hi,

    We were also having performance bottleneck while reading data from Celerra. After some investigation and consultation with EMC, we have changed fastRTO setting on data-movers from default value of "0" to "2" and now getting almost full throughput. Before this change we were getting very low throughput (<10Mbps) while reading from any Celerra machine.

    In our scenario, Celerra is connected to 3Com Core Switch 8810 via aggregated links of 2x1Gbps and clients are connected through edge switch on 100Mbps ports. Now clients are getting 90 to 100 Mbps.

    Can you share your fastRTO current settings?

    Regards,

    Saleem