On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 12:59 AM, Edward Ned Harvey <sh...@nedharvey.com> wrote: >> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- >> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Richard Jahnel >> >> I'vw also tried mbuffer, but I get broken pipe errors part way through >> the transfer. > > The standard answer is mbuffer. I think you should ask yourself what's > going wrong with mbuffer. You're not, by any chance, sending across a LACP > aggregated link, are you? Most people don't notice it, but I sure do, that > usually LACP introduces packet errors. Just watch your error counter, and > start cramming data through there. So far I've never seen a single > implementation that passed this test... Although I'm sure I've just had bad > luck. > > If you're having some packet loss, that might explain the poor performance > of ssh too. Although ssh is known to slow things down in the best of cases > ... I don't know if the speed you're seeing is reasonable considering.
We have hundreds of servers using LACP and so far have not noticed any increase in the error rate. Could you share what implementations (OS, switch) have you tested and how it was done ? I would like to try to simulate these issues. -- Giovanni Tirloni gtirl...@sysdroid.com _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
