I've heard from some (via google searchs) that there are issues with
NFS + SMP when using the 2.6 kernel. Assuming I'm using 2.6.11.5 w/
the NFS-ALL patches applied should I be concerned about running SMP
(dual cpu pentium 4 doing pretty much only NFSv3 TCP, but looking
toward NFSv4)?
Assuming it's ok to use SMP on a heavy use NFS server, should I enable
or disable hyperthreading? I'd assume that for NFS hyperthreading
would be good, but that's only a guess.
Thanks,
Chris
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> I've heard from some (via google searchs) that there are issues with
> NFS + SMP when using the 2.6 kernel. Assuming I'm using 2.6.11.5 w/
> the NFS-ALL patches applied should I be concerned about running SMP
> (dual cpu pentium 4 doing pretty much only NFSv3 TCP, but looking
> toward NFSv4)?
>
> Assuming it's ok to use SMP on a heavy use NFS server, should I enable
> or disable hyperthreading? I'd assume that for NFS hyperthreading
> would be good, but that's only a guess.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Chris
>
Are you referring to the dcache problems with XFS? I think it was only a
problem when the NFS server was exporting an XFS file system. I also haven't
checked in some time, but I believe those problems have since been fixed.
Neil
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> NFS maillist - [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
--
/***************************************************
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*[email protected]
*gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
*http://pgp.mit.edu
***************************************************/
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:13:24 -0500, Neil Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> > I've heard from some (via google searchs) that there are issues with
> > NFS + SMP when using the 2.6 kernel. Assuming I'm using 2.6.11.5 w/
> > the NFS-ALL patches applied should I be concerned about running SMP
> > (dual cpu pentium 4 doing pretty much only NFSv3 TCP, but looking
> > toward NFSv4)?
> >
> > Assuming it's ok to use SMP on a heavy use NFS server, should I enable
> > or disable hyperthreading? I'd assume that for NFS hyperthreading
> > would be good, but that's only a guess.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Chris
> >
> Are you referring to the dcache problems with XFS? I think it was only a
> problem when the NFS server was exporting an XFS file system. I also haven't
> checked in some time, but I believe those problems have since been fixed.
>
> Neil
Yes, most of what I read was regarding XFS. I was not sure if there
were any issues outside of that (I'm using JFS right now).
As far as HyperThreading my testing so far has shown that under heavy
loads enabling HyperThreading on a dual-cpu P4 box seems to be a good
thing. I would grab 30s of packets with ethereal and look at the NFS
stats and the responce time on writes/commits (which we see a fair bit
of) were at least 33% faster if not more. I'm not sure if that's an
accurate way to measure though -- I know enough to be dangerous, but
I'm not an expert.
Chris
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:40:03AM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:13:24 -0500, Neil Horman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> > > I've heard from some (via google searchs) that there are issues with
> > > NFS + SMP when using the 2.6 kernel. Assuming I'm using 2.6.11.5 w/
> > > the NFS-ALL patches applied should I be concerned about running SMP
> > > (dual cpu pentium 4 doing pretty much only NFSv3 TCP, but looking
> > > toward NFSv4)?
> > >
> > > Assuming it's ok to use SMP on a heavy use NFS server, should I enable
> > > or disable hyperthreading? I'd assume that for NFS hyperthreading
> > > would be good, but that's only a guess.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> > Are you referring to the dcache problems with XFS? I think it was only a
> > problem when the NFS server was exporting an XFS file system. I also haven't
> > checked in some time, but I believe those problems have since been fixed.
> >
> > Neil
>
> Yes, most of what I read was regarding XFS. I was not sure if there
> were any issues outside of that (I'm using JFS right now).
>
None that I'm aware of, but my knoweldge is far from exhaustive :)
> As far as HyperThreading my testing so far has shown that under heavy
> loads enabling HyperThreading on a dual-cpu P4 box seems to be a good
> thing. I would grab 30s of packets with ethereal and look at the NFS
> stats and the responce time on writes/commits (which we see a fair bit
> of) were at least 33% faster if not more. I'm not sure if that's an
> accurate way to measure though -- I know enough to be dangerous, but
> I'm not an expert.
>
Neither am I :). You testing seems reasonable to me (at least for what you are
trying to measure currently). IIRC the Linux scheduler is built to take
advantage of the shared resources available on hyperthreaded processors and
schedules accordingly. In general I think its a good idea to turn on. I
believe there are some pessimal workloads that can cause worse performance with
HT on, than with HT off, but I believe you really have to work hard to produce
those.
Regards
Neil
> Chris
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> NFS maillist - [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
--
/***************************************************
*Neil Horman
*Software Engineer
*Red Hat, Inc.
*[email protected]
*gpg keyid: 1024D / 0x92A74FA1
*http://pgp.mit.edu
***************************************************/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by Demarc:
A global provider of Threat Management Solutions.
Download our HomeAdmin security software for free today!
http://www.demarc.com/Info/Sentarus/hamr30
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Hi,
I don't know if you originally referred to some of my earlier posts here and
on LKML regarding instability on 2.6 (2.6.8.1) with SMP...
There where, from my experience two separate problems:
The dcache problems which was fixed in 2.6.10.
One or more issues producing Oops's on SMP machines. I am not sure if they
where NFS bound (actually I dont think they where, but I only saw them on one
of our high-load NFS servers). I found out that running the system in UP mode
made the server stable.
Back when I had the problems, I tested on 2.6.8.1 and haven't dared to try SMP
since, so my knowledge is a bit ageing. But if you decide you are up for it,
I would be very interested in the results! ....SMP would be nice on those
XEON boxes.
//Saaby
On Thursday 31 March 2005 15:17, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:40:03AM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:13:24 -0500, Neil Horman <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2005 at 03:58:02PM -0500, Chris Penney wrote:
> > > > I've heard from some (via google searchs) that there are issues with
> > > > NFS + SMP when using the 2.6 kernel. Assuming I'm using 2.6.11.5 w/
> > > > the NFS-ALL patches applied should I be concerned about running SMP
> > > > (dual cpu pentium 4 doing pretty much only NFSv3 TCP, but looking
> > > > toward NFSv4)?
> > > >
> > > > Assuming it's ok to use SMP on a heavy use NFS server, should I
> > > > enable or disable hyperthreading? I'd assume that for NFS
> > > > hyperthreading would be good, but that's only a guess.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > >
> > > Are you referring to the dcache problems with XFS? I think it was only
> > > a problem when the NFS server was exporting an XFS file system. I also
> > > haven't checked in some time, but I believe those problems have since
> > > been fixed.
> > >
> > > Neil
> >
> > Yes, most of what I read was regarding XFS. I was not sure if there
> > were any issues outside of that (I'm using JFS right now).
>
> None that I'm aware of, but my knoweldge is far from exhaustive :)
>
> > As far as HyperThreading my testing so far has shown that under heavy
> > loads enabling HyperThreading on a dual-cpu P4 box seems to be a good
> > thing. I would grab 30s of packets with ethereal and look at the NFS
> > stats and the responce time on writes/commits (which we see a fair bit
> > of) were at least 33% faster if not more. I'm not sure if that's an
> > accurate way to measure though -- I know enough to be dangerous, but
> > I'm not an expert.
>
> Neither am I :). You testing seems reasonable to me (at least for what you
> are trying to measure currently). IIRC the Linux scheduler is built to
> take advantage of the shared resources available on hyperthreaded
> processors and schedules accordingly. In general I think its a good idea
> to turn on. I believe there are some pessimal workloads that can cause
> worse performance with HT on, than with HT off, but I believe you really
> have to work hard to produce those.
>
> Regards
> Neil
>
> > Chris
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
> > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> > _______________________________________________
> > NFS maillist - [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
--
Med venlig hilsen - Best regards - Meilleures salutations
Anders Saaby
Systems Engineer
------------------------------------------------
Cohaesio A/S - Maglebjergvej 5D - DK-2800 Lyngby
Phone: +45 45 880 888 - Fax: +45 45 880 777
Mail: [email protected] - http://www.cohaesio.com
------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs