Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751315AbWAQBcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:32:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751322AbWAQBcQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:32:16 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([66.45.37.187]:38342 "EHLO lucidpixels.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751315AbWAQBcP (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:32:15 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 20:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p34 To: Phil Oester cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apiszcz@lucidpixels.com Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? In-Reply-To: <20060117012319.GA22161@linuxace.com> Message-ID: References: <20060117012319.GA22161@linuxace.com> 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: 819 Lines: 28 Also, some people mentioned tuning, I used 8192 as the w/r size it then took 15 seconds, with 65535 it took 28 seconds. I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is the problem itself? Will try later thanks. FTP seems to be the winner for now: <--- 226 8.927 seconds (measured here), 78.31 Mbytes per second 733045488 bytes transferred in 9 seconds (77.08M/s) On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Phil Oester wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:07:02PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? > > Precisely. > > Phil > - 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/