[Info-vax] Mounting NFS disk with /DATA non-default parameters

[Stephen Hoffman]

On 2013-01-11 11:16:50 +0000, Sum1 said:

So to summarize: you have no budget, no testing data, no free PCI 
slots, and are seeking better performance?  Ok.

Jumbo frames are a fairly common GbE feature.  Support is less often 
available on older 100 MbE switches and 100 MbE NICs.

> Thanks for the useful reply.  The "dumb" switch won't support Jumbo 
> packets and there is no spare slot on the DS10L.

A dumb switch that's too cheap to support Jumbo frames, and you want 
better performance?  Replace the dumb switch with a switch with less 
dumb-ness?  Newer GbE dumb switches generally do support jumbo frames, 
as do various GbE managed switches.

As for your current sequence, if you want to know what's going on with 
the different sizes, test it.  You've got a complex configuration here, 
after all.

NFS on OpenVMS is not known for performance.

Also see if swapping out the contents of that PCI slot for faster local 
SCSI storage, too.  A direct connection into even a BA356-class 
StorageWorks box will be much faster than any network connection.

> I am trying to improve the rate at which data arrives from the server 
> to the DS10L - there is a web server running and it receives requests 
> for photos, most of which are 300-300K.  Increasing the transfer size 
> may make a small but noticable improvement in the photo display time….?

If this is remote network access to this data, then the dumb switch and 
your NFS connection are likely irrelevent.  With the typical 
differential between a GbE connection and a remote network connection, 
it is very likely the remote network link is your bottleneck.  Not any 
local GbE-class NFS link.  The integrated 100 MbE will still be faster 
than many remote links, too.  And if you are having issues with the NFS 
link, you can test with locally-stored files and bring the data 
inboard.  That'll tell you if NFS is the slow component, or if 
something else is slow.

I wouldn't expect much from either a 466 MHz or 600 MHz AlphaServer 
DS10L box here, either.  It'll be able to run faster than most remote 
network links, but those are old and slow systems in comparison with 
most any x86-class box available in recent times, and will require more 
power and cooling, and that particular model of AlphaServer is (as 
you're aware) not particularly expandable.  And a faster x86 box will 
be cheaper.  Use the right tool, in other words.



-- 
Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC