<?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 CIFS over WAN in Network and Storage Protocols</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5678#M576</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a filer running 8.1.2p1 I think.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Locally CIFS gets about 120 mb a sec.&amp;nbsp; Quite fast a definitely good performance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Over a WAN however CIFS gets all of 130 KB a sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have looked at the common items.&amp;nbsp; Enabled SMB2, no signing, increased the TCP window for CIFS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have even set flow control on the switch side to on for both send and receive.&amp;nbsp; However, no matter what&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;we do the performance will not get better than 130 KB a sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When we do tests to a Win 2008 R2 machine over the same link we get 20 Mbytes a sec on a 200 Mbit link.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Latency is ok, 53 ms rtt.&amp;nbsp; That isn't awful or anything.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there anything we could be missing?&amp;nbsp; The WAN link goes from CA to TX.&amp;nbsp; We have netapps at both ends&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and have test both way to multiple netapps all with the same outcome.&amp;nbsp; I have also tested from CA to Atlanta GA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;with roughly the same numbers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any thoughts would be appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:48:13 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>greghaa69</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:48:13Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>CIFS over WAN</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5678#M576</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have a filer running 8.1.2p1 I think.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Locally CIFS gets about 120 mb a sec.&amp;nbsp; Quite fast a definitely good performance.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Over a WAN however CIFS gets all of 130 KB a sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have looked at the common items.&amp;nbsp; Enabled SMB2, no signing, increased the TCP window for CIFS.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;We have even set flow control on the switch side to on for both send and receive.&amp;nbsp; However, no matter what&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;we do the performance will not get better than 130 KB a sec.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When we do tests to a Win 2008 R2 machine over the same link we get 20 Mbytes a sec on a 200 Mbit link.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Latency is ok, 53 ms rtt.&amp;nbsp; That isn't awful or anything.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Is there anything we could be missing?&amp;nbsp; The WAN link goes from CA to TX.&amp;nbsp; We have netapps at both ends&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;and have test both way to multiple netapps all with the same outcome.&amp;nbsp; I have also tested from CA to Atlanta GA&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;with roughly the same numbers.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Any thoughts would be appreciated.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 05:48:13 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5678#M576</guid>
      <dc:creator>greghaa69</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T05:48:13Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIFS over WAN</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5684#M578</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Look at WAN accelerator products, like Riverbed? &lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:32:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5684#M578</guid>
      <dc:creator>nigelg1965</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-10T14:32:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: CIFS over WAN</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5689#M580</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I am pretty sure a riverbed is already in use.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;What I have discovered, is that over the WAN, the client gets a TCP window on 143, &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;where the NetApp is advertising a TCP window of 64240.&amp;nbsp; Which is what we have&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;cifs.tcp_window_size set to.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Dec 2013 14:38:03 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Network-and-Storage-Protocols/CIFS-over-WAN/m-p/5689#M580</guid>
      <dc:creator>greghaa69</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-12-10T14:38:03Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

