On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:58:54 +0200
"Arttu V." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/24/08, Stefan Onken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Any ideas how to improve the speed ?
>
> noatime?
>
I wouldn't expect that to help too much. Async is the #1 speed
improvement on my network; I get disc access speeds of 11.5 mb/s on
mine, which effectively maxes out the network. In /etc/exports on
the server I have:
/mnt/storage 192.168.0.0/16(rw,async,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash)
and as the client (from `mount`):
nfs:/mnt/storage on /home/media/storage type
nfs(rw,rsize=65536,wsize=65536,soft,timeo=300,addr=192.168.1.88)
/etc/fstab on the client looks like:
nfs:/mnt/storage /home/media/storage nfs
rsize=65536,wsize=65536,rw,async,soft,timeo=300 0 0
Of these options, rsize,wsize,and async are reputed to effect
performance. However, I do not see much of an effect between different
rsize and wsize settings. I believe that over an uncongested 100T
network it probably doesn't matter too much what rsize and wsize are.
On a different share (same server) mounted async without [r|w]size set,
performance (write, this time) was 11.2mb/s, roughly the same.
Furthermore, I'm not sure these values are even valid.
http://www.linuxdocs.org/HOWTOs/NFS-HOWTO/performance.html said that
nfs3 goes only to 32768.
wdelay and no_wdelay might have an effect, depending on your
application. I no longer tweak those values.
There are some network performance tweaks as well; their effect wasn't
particularly noticable to me, but look
http://www.linuxdocs.org/HOWTOs/NFS-HOWTO/performance.html for more
information on "5.4. Memory Limits on the Input Queue", "5.3. Number of
Instances of NFSD", and "5.5. Overflow of Fragmented Packets" were
interesting to me.
Finally, NFS4 is reputed to be much faster in certain cases.
Hope that helps. I would be very interested in your findings.
Be well,
Dan Farrell
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
