On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:22:50PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Does windows 7 support nfs v4, then? Is it expected (ie: is it
worthwhile
trying) that nfsv4 would perform at a similar speed to iSCSI? It would
seem that this at least requires active directory (or
On 12/12/2012 17:57, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
The performance of the iSCSI disk is
about the same as the local disk for some operations --- faster for
some, slower for others. The workstation has 12G of memory and it's
my perception that iSCSI is heavily cached and that this enhances it's
With a network file system (either SMB or NFS, it doesn't matter), you
need to ask the server for *each* of the following situations:
* to ask the server if a file has been changed so the client can use
cached data (if the protocol supports it)
* to ask the server if a file (or a
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
With a network file system (either SMB or NFS, it doesn't matter),
you
need to ask the server for *each* of the following situations:
* to ask the server if a file has been changed so the client can
use
cached data (if the protocol supports it)
* to
Does windows 7 support nfs v4, then? Is it expected (ie: is it worthwhile
trying) that nfsv4 would perform at a similar speed to iSCSI? It would
seem that this at least requires active directory (or this user name
mapping ... which I remember being hard).
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Does windows 7 support nfs v4, then? Is it expected (ie: is it
worthwhile
trying) that nfsv4 would perform at a similar speed to iSCSI? It would
seem that this at least requires active directory (or this user name
mapping ... which I remember being hard).
As far as I
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote:
Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Does windows 7 support nfs v4, then? Is it expected (ie: is it
worthwhile
trying) that nfsv4 would perform at a similar speed to iSCSI? It would
seem that this at least requires active
you cannot compare file serving and block device serving.
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote:
Does windows 7 support nfs v4, then? Is it expected (ie: is it worthwhile
trying) that nfsv4 would perform at a similar speed to
iSCSI? It would seem that this at least requires active
So... I have two machines. My Fileserver is a core-2-duo machine with
FreeBSD-9.1-ish ZFS, istgt and samba 3.6. My workstation is windows 7
on an i7. Both have GigE and are connected directly via a managed
switch with jumbo packets (specifically 9016) enabled. Both are using
tagged vlan
about the same as the local disk for some operations --- faster for
some, slower for others. The workstation has 12G of memory and it's
my perception that iSCSI is heavily cached and that this enhances it's
any REAL test means doing something that will not fit in cache.
But this is
as you show your needs for unshared data for single workstation is in
order of single large hard drive.
reducing drive count on file server by one and connecting this one drive
directly to workstation is the best solution
___
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Wojciech Puchar
woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl wrote:
about the same as the local disk for some operations --- faster for
some, slower for others. The workstation has 12G of memory and it's
my perception that iSCSI is heavily cached and that this enhances it's
common to move from area to area in the game loading, unloading and
reloading the same data. My test is a valid comparison of the two
modes of loading the game ... from iSCSI and from SMB.
i don't know how windows cache network shares (iSCSI is treated as
local not network). Here is a main
-Original Message-
From: Zaphod Beeblebrox
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 6:57 PM
To: FreeBSD Hackers
Subject: iSCSI vs. SMB with ZFS.
So... I have two machines. My Fileserver is a core-2-duo machine with
FreeBSD-9.1-ish ZFS, istgt and samba 3.6. My workstation is windows 7
14 matches
Mail list logo
