From: Tom McNeal Subject: Re: RH 7.3 kernels and NFS performance Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:19:05 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3D515689.DE925A02@attbi.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Trond Myklebust , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com ([204.127.202.61]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17cUOx-0002q8-00 for ; Wed, 07 Aug 2002 10:15:15 -0700 To: Rex Dieter Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Rex Dieter wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Aug 2002, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > > > If you are getting that performance with v3, then it does indeed sound > > like a bug somewhere. Try with a stock 2.4.19 kernel instead... > > I just tested things with a test kernel (2.4.18-7) from redhat, and it > sync write speeds were again way up there. Problem fixed, as far as I'm > concerned... hopefully, they'll release an errata soon. > > -- > Rex A. Dieter rdieter@unl.edu > Computer System Administrator http://www.math.unl.edu/~rdieter/ > Mathematics and Statistics > University of Nebraska Lincoln and "Lever, Charles" wrote: > > hi jeff- > > > I remember reading on the list about the terrible NFS > > performance of the latest RH kernels. Would someone > > care to summarize this for me (UDP or TCP, etc.)? Also, > > does anyone have any rough estimates of the performance > > hit? > > if you are referring to bad NFS client performance, this > is due to a bug in the Linux IP fragmentation logic which > causes it to send part of a fragmented packet, and drop > the rest, if it runs out of socket buffer space during > the fragmentation process. > > thus it only affects NFS over UDP. > > there is an easy workaround: enlarge the size of the > RPC transport socket's buffers. see the NFS FAQ for > instructions. > > a bug was reported in the eepro100 driver too, and that > may have some effect on client performance. > So if this is one and the same bug, then enlarging the transport socket size is actually discussed in the performance section of the howto documents (section 5.7) at http://nfs.sourceforge.net/nfs-howto/performance.html#MEMLIMITS Tom -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom McNeal trmcneal@attbi.com (650)906-0761 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs