>>>>> "John" == John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:56:27 pm Daryl Sayers wrote: >> >>>>> "John" == John Baldwin <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > On Monday, November 28, 2011 7:12:39 pm Daryl Sayers wrote: >> >> >>>>> "Bengt" == Bengt Ahlgren <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> >> > Daryl Sayers <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> Can anyone suggest why I am getting poor write performance from my nfs >> >> >> setup. >> >> >> I have 2 x FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE i386 machines with ASUS P5B-plus mother >> >> >> boards, >> >> >> 4G mem and Dual core 3g processor using 147G 15k Seagate SAS drives >> >> >> with >> >> >> onboard Gb network cards connected to an idle network. The results >> >> >> below show >> >> >> that I get nearly 100Mb/s with a dd over rsh but only 15Mbs using nfs. >> >> >> It >> >> >> improves if I use async but a smbfs mount still beats it. I am using >> >> >> the same >> >> >> file, source and destinations for all tests. I have tried alternate >> >> >> Network >> >> >> cards with no resulting benefit. >> >> >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> >> Looking at a systat -v on the destination I see that the nfs test does >> >> >> not >> >> >> exceed 16KB/t with 100% busy where the other tests reach up to 128KB/t. >> >> >> For the record I get reads of 22Mb/s without and 77Mb/s with async >> >> >> turned on >> >> >> for the nfs mount. >> >> >> >> > On an UFS filesystem you get NFS writes with the same size as the >> >> > filesystem blocksize. So an easy way to improve performance is to >> >> > create a filesystem with larger blocks. I accidentally found this out >> >> > when I had two NFS exported filesystems from the same box with 16K and >> >> > 64K blocksizes respectively. >> >> >> >> > (Larger blocksize also tremendously improves the performance of UFS >> >> > snapshots!) >> >> >> >> Thanks to all that answered. I did try the 'sysctl -w vfs.nfsrv.async=1' >> >> with >> >> no reportable change in performance. We are using a UFS2 filesystem so the >> >> zfs command was not required. I did not try the patch as we would like to >> >> stay >> >> as standard as possible but will upgrade if the patch is released in new >> >> kernel. >> >> > If you can test the patch then it is something I will likely put into the >> > next release. I have already tested it as far as robustness locally, what >> > I don't have are good performance tests. It would really be helpful if you >> > were able to test it. >> >> >> Thanks Bengt for the suggestion of block size. Increasing the block size >> >> to >> >> 64k made a significant improvement to performance. >> >> > In theory the patch might have given you similar gains. During my simple >> > tests >> > I was able to raise the average I/O size in iostat to 70 to 80k from 16k. >> >> OK, I downloaded and install the patch and did some basic testing and I can >> reveal that the patch does improve performance. I can also see that my KB/t >> now exceed the 16KB/t that seemed to be a limiting factor prior. > Ok, thanks. Does it give similar performance results to using 64k block size? >From the tests I have done I get similar results to the block size change. -- Daryl Sayers Direct: +612 95525510 Corinthian Engineering Office: +612 95525500 Suite 54, Jones Bay Wharf Fax: +612 95525549 26-32 Pirrama Rd email: [email protected] Pyrmont NSW 2009 Australia www: http://www.ci.com.au _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
