Sam wrote:
> 
> jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:
> >
> > >We are trying to build the best File Server we can possibly make with
> > >NetBsd on intel architecture. We built servers under FreeBSD but we are
> > >not satisfied with the NFS perfs, and Free Bsd in general. (PIII 500, 4
> > >U2W 18Go stripped HD, and 3coms/digital NIC).
> >
> > The NFS implementation in both systems -- in any *BSD system, AFAIK --
> > is derived from the 4.3-Reno NFS implementation, done by Rick Macklem
> > and others.  I have not tried FreeBSD's NFS, but I wouldn't expect
> > major gains going from one NFS implementation to the other.
> >
> 
> Actually, we could only use our disks as 80M/s on FreeBSD, with the U2W
> Adaptec Card,
> cause we haven't got any card that works with Netbsd yet (we should get
> Advansys', and Qlogic's soon).
> On free BSD, we are faster than the NetApp on big files, but much slower
> on small ones.
> Thats why we think the problem comes from nfs or FreeBSD file system,
> and why we want
> to try different file systems on NetBSD.

...

Moreover FreeBSD supports only FFS, we would like to try LFS on NetBSD.
Cause it should be better on small files.

Maybe Ext2fs is worth try too. Is there any "newfs_ext2" that would 
create ext2 file system on our stripped U2W disks?

We were wandering too what exactly was the collision that Free and Net
reports. 
Cause our servers are directly linked to cisco switchs, so collisions as
we 
know it should never happend. Our Alpha servers do not report collision
at all 
linked to the same switchs..

What do you think?

sam.