Hello!
I have a usual process of downloading pictures from a flash card (@ 15
MB/s or so) and writing them over 100 Mbps Ethernet (@ 12 MB/s or so).
One would expect and hope that both the reading and writing could happen
simultaneously to optimize throughput, but the current behaviour on both
NFSv3 and NFSv4 is as follows:
multiple files loop (copying with "cp"):
open source, dest
data copy loop:
read(source)
write(dest)
close(source)
close(dest)
The inner loop happens at about the rate of the flash card reader all the
way up to my picture size (12-25 MB). Then, on close(), rpciod / the NFS
client flushes all data over the network, at the rate which the network
can sustain.
Overall throughput is therefore about 1/(1/12+1/15) == 6.67 MB/s, which
is not very exciting.
I find that replacing "cp" with "dd ... bs=131072 oflag=dsync" lets me
copy at near network speed, at the expense of slowing down copying to a
local hard drive should I chose to do that instead, and seems to be more
of a workaround than a solution (and it's very sensitive to block size
and still slower than network speed).
Is there any way to convince NFS (or buffer flushing) to start sooner in
this case -- preferrably when there are at least wsize bytes available to
write? Is there any downside to doing this?
Other than some special-case handling with deleting a temporary file
before closing it (does that even work?), I don't see how the current
behaviour helps performance in _any_ case, even when copying from fast
media.
I looked around the NFS man pages, /proc and /sys and didn't see anything
that might be helpful, but I am interested to find out how things came to
arrive at this implementation.
Cheers!
Simon-
On Apr 14, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Simon Kirby wrote:
> Hello!
>
> I have a usual process of downloading pictures from a flash card (@ 15
> MB/s or so) and writing them over 100 Mbps Ethernet (@ 12 MB/s or so).
> One would expect and hope that both the reading and writing could
> happen
> simultaneously to optimize throughput, but the current behaviour on
> both
> NFSv3 and NFSv4 is as follows:
>
> multiple files loop (copying with "cp"):
> open source, dest
> data copy loop:
> read(source)
> write(dest)
> close(source)
> close(dest)
>
> The inner loop happens at about the rate of the flash card reader
> all the
> way up to my picture size (12-25 MB). Then, on close(), rpciod /
> the NFS
> client flushes all data over the network, at the rate which the
> network
> can sustain.
>
> Overall throughput is therefore about 1/(1/12+1/15) == 6.67 MB/s,
> which
> is not very exciting.
>
> I find that replacing "cp" with "dd ... bs=131072 oflag=dsync" lets me
> copy at near network speed, at the expense of slowing down copying
> to a
> local hard drive should I chose to do that instead, and seems to be
> more
> of a workaround than a solution (and it's very sensitive to block size
> and still slower than network speed).
>
> Is there any way to convince NFS (or buffer flushing) to start
> sooner in
> this case -- preferrably when there are at least wsize bytes
> available to
> write? Is there any downside to doing this?
VM/VFS and NFS client both delay writes aggressively. A page cache
flush is forced by the close(2) call, but the client will hold onto
dirty data until the last possible moment. It's kind of a system-wide
policy, and yes, we know it's not so good for NFS.
There are some VM sysctls that can tune down the maximum amount of
dirty writes allowed to be outstanding. Have a look at /proc/sys/vm/
dirty_ratio and /proc/sys/vm/dirty_background_ratio. The problem with
these is that a) they are system wide, so the settings affect all of
your file systems, and 2) it's a ratio, so I don't think you can tune
it to flush files smaller than 1% of your system's physical RAM. On a
system with one gigabyte, that means you are still caching about 10MB
before starting to flush. I'm guessing your flash files are smaller
than that.
Another solution is to change your application. Calling
sync_file_range(2) in asynchronous mode every so often in your loop
might be sufficient to kick the VM into flushing the data sooner.
> Other than some special-case handling with deleting a temporary file
> before closing it (does that even work?), I don't see how the current
> behaviour helps performance in _any_ case, even when copying from fast
> media.
>
> I looked around the NFS man pages, /proc and /sys and didn't see
> anything
> that might be helpful, but I am interested to find out how things
> came to
> arrive at this implementation.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Simon-
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs"
> in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com