<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: NFS Performance - really poor in General Topics</title>
    <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22408#M16337</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;@&lt;A _jive_internal="true" data-avatarid="1607" data-externalid="" data-online="false" data-presence="null" data-userid="12528" data-username="ericgearhart" href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/people/ericgearhart"&gt;ericgearhart&lt;/A&gt;: we have considered app override, this would be a work around at best not a fix.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:38:10 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>coldstone1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-04-26T13:38:10Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>NFS Performance - really poor</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22406#M16335</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hello everyone,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To start, this is my first post ever and I'll try to be as complete as I can.&amp;nbsp; Yes we are working with ETAC, who are very helpful.&amp;nbsp; However the solution is evasive and I hope someone else in the community has experienced something similar to this.&amp;nbsp; Without the PA's in the mix, NFS performance is 750-800GB/hr.&amp;nbsp; No indication of CPU or interface overrun issues on the PA.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Background:&amp;nbsp; Experiencing dramatic and severe performance drop off when using NFS to push large volume of data through a Palo Alto.&amp;nbsp; Data transfer rate starts out at 1GB/s+ (600GB/hr) and then drops off suddenly to 20-25GB/hr.&amp;nbsp; There are two instances where this does not occur:&amp;nbsp; First when client is 1Gb connected and second when target server is located at Hotsite.&amp;nbsp; In both cases, the traffic traverse an identically configured pair of 5060's running 5.011x code. The main difference between the two sites is in the second case traffic traverses a 2.5Gb DWDM link but NFS transfer rate is 400+GB/hr.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Topology: (vWire interface on 10GB SFP+, multimode fiber)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Pair of Palo Alto 5060 configured as Active/Active with HA3 packet forwarding disabled (i.e. no load balancing), each star below is a cluster. For the 10GB connected hosts and PA's the switch infrastructure is Nexus 7000, 5000 and 2200 series switches.&amp;nbsp; 1GB connected hosts with no problems are connected to C7000, C6500, and 4948.&amp;nbsp; Policy is permit anything at the moment.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;IMG __jive_id="12837" alt="Oxford-Woking-whiteboard.png" class="jive-image" height="245" src="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/legacyfs/online/12837_Oxford-Woking-whiteboard.png" style="width: 547px; height: 245.268px;" width="547" /&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;To date we have tried several approaches to resolving the issue.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Isolated network communications to a single PA, this removed A/A from the mix.&amp;nbsp; This didn't result in any performance difference.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Set asymmetric bypass to enable&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Specific line of policy for client/server with threat protections removed.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Network Engineer indicate no errors incrementing on switches.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- One other confusion point.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; When running the same test in the hotsite (right side of drawing) performance is ~450GB/hr.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Considering:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- Bypassing PA, but leaving all other network components in place.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- On the left portion of the drawing, moving the T4 link off the 2200 series FEX and connecting it directly to C7000. &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thank you in advance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 04:27:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22406#M16335</guid>
      <dc:creator>coldstone1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-17T04:27:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NFS Performance - really poor</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22407#M16336</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Maybe try configuring App override for NFS? In testing I have done with various PA platforms in our lab (PA 500, PA 2000s, PA5000s) I have seen performance improve with app overrides in place. Just something to try.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Apr 2014 15:02:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22407#M16336</guid>
      <dc:creator>ericgearhart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-17T15:02:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NFS Performance - really poor</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22408#M16337</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;@&lt;A _jive_internal="true" data-avatarid="1607" data-externalid="" data-online="false" data-presence="null" data-userid="12528" data-username="ericgearhart" href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/people/ericgearhart"&gt;ericgearhart&lt;/A&gt;: we have considered app override, this would be a work around at best not a fix.&amp;nbsp; &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:38:10 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22408#M16337</guid>
      <dc:creator>coldstone1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-26T13:38:10Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NFS Performance - really poor</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22409#M16338</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Update:&amp;nbsp; A Palo fly/fix engineer spend time with us this past week and helped discover some interesting pieces of information.&amp;nbsp; First, our *nix engineers tuned the TCP MSS to 1M on the T4 systems.&amp;nbsp; This could be why the PA's are dealing with significant amounts of packet re-assembly.&amp;nbsp; There is also a difference when the client is pushing a file via NFS vs pulling a file.&amp;nbsp; When uploading a file to the DD990, performance is +- 170GB/hr, when downloading a file performance is +- 300GB/hr.&amp;nbsp; What's interesting, when downloading a file there is no packet fragmentation at all.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Both results are focusing our attention on client side tuning and it's impact.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Also looking at the network topology and configuration, are either contributing to the problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2014 13:51:59 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22409#M16338</guid>
      <dc:creator>coldstone1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-26T13:51:59Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: NFS Performance - really poor</title>
      <link>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22410#M16339</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;A href="https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/u1/23650"&gt;coldstone1&lt;/A&gt; right I completely agree, I was more or less suggesting it as a data point. If App override suddenly makes a huge positive impact on performance, then at least the problem is narrowed down a bit&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:58:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://live.paloaltonetworks.com/t5/general-topics/nfs-performance-really-poor/m-p/22410#M16339</guid>
      <dc:creator>ericgearhart</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-04-29T19:58:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

