From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262486AbVAKEDd (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:03:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262393AbVAKEBD (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:01:03 -0500 Received: from ozlabs.org ([203.10.76.45]:63442 "EHLO ozlabs.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262486AbVAKEAD (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:00:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 14:58:10 +1100 From: Anton Blanchard To: Phy Prabab Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux NFS vs NetApp Message-ID: <20050111035810.GG14239@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20050111025401.48311.qmail@web51810.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050111025401.48311.qmail@web51810.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > I am trying to understand how NetApp can be so much > better at NFS servicing than my quad Opteron 250 SAN > attached machine. So I need some help and some > pointers to understand how I can make my opteron > machine come on par (or within 70% NFS performance > range) as that of my NetApp R200. I have run through > the NFS-how-to's and have heard "that is why they cost > so much more", but I really have to consider that > probably most of the ideas that are in the NetApp are > common knowldge (just not in my head). > > Can anyone shed some light on this? Definitely sounds like something is wrong. You can do your own comparisons of Linux 2.6 vs Netapp here (the OpenPower 720 is a ppc64 Linux box): http://www.spec.org/sfs97r1/results/sfs97r1.html Anton