Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751319AbWAQBHM (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:07:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751321AbWAQBHL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:07:11 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([66.45.37.187]:33211 "EHLO lucidpixels.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751319AbWAQBHJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:07:09 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:07:02 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p34 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org cc: apiszcz@lucidpixels.com Subject: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1046 Lines: 35 Now that I have 74GB raptors in both of my Linux boxes, I thought I would compare throughput between FTP and NFS over a gigabit network. I am using the same kernel versions and same motherboard on both machines and even the same raptor hdd model. Here are my results: NFS, COPY 700MB FILE FROM 1 RAPTOR TO ANOTHER RAPTOR VIA GIGABIT ETHERNET: $ cp file /remote/dst 0.02user 1.86system 0:38.07elapsed 4%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps FTP, SAME lftp> put file 733045488 bytes transferred in 10 seconds (67.38M/s) What is wrong with NFS? NFS options used: rw,bg,hard,intr,nfsvers=3 Is it doing some kind of weird caching? I am using NFSv3 & XFS as the filesystem, any ideas? I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? Thanks! Justin. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/