> Trond Myklebust/Jason Holmes/Eric Whiting wrote ...
I ran the iozone in the cluster mode to time read and write under NFSv3.
Under a server memory constraint scenario, I saw reads on 2.6.0-test9 about
8X slower than 2.4.22.
For writes, I saw improvement in 2.6.0-test9 irrespective of server memory
size.
The following data represents the throughput in KB/sec as seen by the NFS
server subject to various memory sizes.
Server Memory 512MB 512MB 2048MB 2048MB
Kernel 2.4.22 260-test9 2.4.22 260-test9
Write 14514 29134 13670 29330
Rewrite 15140 25943 14683 27046
Read 24404 3685 72165 78445
ReRead 24702 3705 73267 78375
NFS Server: 4-way 700MHz, 2.5GB RAM, e1000 switch box, stock 2.6.0-test9.
NFS Client: 2-way, 2GHz, 1GB RAM, e1000, stock kernel 2.4.22, NFSv3 mounted
with default parameters
Benchmark: iozone running in cluster mode from the server with test file
size set to 1GB.
rpc data for 2422 and 260test9 at 512MB and 2048MB server memory:
512MB 512MB ratio 2048MB 2048MB ratio
Kernel 2422 260t9 2422/260t9 2422 260t9 2422/260t
Server nfs v3 stats:
getattr 3 15 0.20 3 3 1.00
fsstat 0 0 0 0
fsinfo 0 0 0 0
read 262992 66409 3.96 262992 65545 4.01
write 262162 65806 3.98 262162 65646 3.99
access 20 20 1.00 20 20 1.00
remove 2 1 2.00 2 1 2.00
create 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.00
commit 2056 2132 0.96 2056 2102 0.98
0
server rp 0
calls 527239 134383 3.92 527239 133345 3.95
Client nfs v3 stats:
getattr 3 15 0.20 3 3 1.00
setattr 0 0 0 0
lookup 3 2 1.50 3 3 1.00
access 20 20 1.00 20 20 1.00
read 262992 65547 4.01 262992 65560 4.01
write 262145 65537 4.00 262145 65537 4.00
create 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.00
remove 1 1 1.00 1 1 1.00
readdir 0 0 0 0
fsstat 0 0 0 0
fsinfo 0 0 0 0
commit 2055 2052 1.00 2055 2052 1.00
client rpc stats:
calls 527220 133175 3.96 527220 133177 3.96
retrans 7509 2242 3.35 7509 620 12.11
I did open a defect to describe the above read problem at:
http://bugme.osdl.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1539
Regards ...Duc
Eric Whiting
<[email protected]> To: [email protected], Jason Holmes
Sent by: <[email protected]>
[email protected] cc: [email protected]
ceforge.net Subject: Re: [NFS] 2.4 vs. 2.6 nfs client performance
11/13/2003 12:59 PM
Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> > This is not the same test, nor the same results as Jason's, but
> > here is some more data from bonnie and dd tests.This shows some
> > write performance difference between 2.4 and 2.6 eric
>
> How about vs. 2.4.23?
2.4.23 looks good -- see below -- these are acceptable numbers for a 100M
network. I reran the 2.6.0-test6-mm4 benchmarks and it still is much slower
than
the the 2.4.23.
Question for Jason: -- are you running the 4/4 vm layout in your kernel? My
2.6.0-test6-mm4 has the 4/4 vm enabled -- which can have an impact on
performance. I'll tetest with 2.6.0-test9 without the mm1 and 4/4 vm
enabled.
eric
Linux host 2.4.23-rc1 #2 SMP Thu Nov 13 11:30:02 MST 2003 i686 athlon i386
GNU/Linux
/test> bonnie -s 100
Writing with putc()... done: 9228 kB/s 52.0 %CPU
Rewriting... done: 9435 kB/s 6.0 %CPU
Writing intelligently...done: 9235 kB/s 4.0 %CPU
/test> rm file;time dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=1 count=10000000
10000000+0 records in
10000000+0 records out
real 0m20.086s
user 0m3.120s
sys 0m16.740s
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
>>>>> " " == Duc Vianney <[email protected]> writes:
> I ran the iozone in the cluster mode to time read and write
> under NFSv3. Under a server memory constraint scenario, I saw
> reads on 2.6.0-test9 about 8X slower than 2.4.22. For writes,
> I saw improvement in 2.6.0-test9 irrespective of server memory
> size.
This is consistent with what I see on my setups.
The increase in write speed you see is due to the fact that we've
managed to lift the restriction we have in 2.4.x that only 256 writes
writes may be cached before have to we do another COMMIT and flush
them to disk.
The slowdown in reads is something I see too. What's more, both I and
others are also seeing slowdowns on local filesystem reads. I
therefore suspect some bug in the new VFS readahead code, but I still
haven't found time to look into this.
Cheers,
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs