From: Eric Whiting <eric_whiting@amis.com>
Subject: Re: High Performance NFS
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:54:43 -0700
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <3DC19893.626B5DF5@amis.com>
References: <011501c2811c$16327c70$1400005b@ipservices1.ioerror.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: derek@ioerror.com
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net

What is the linux version of the server? Clients? NFSv3 or NFSv2? This
is a somewhat important question. NFS has improved a lot over the last
12 months.

I suggest something like this:

1. benchmark local storage. 
How fast is your writes without considering the network. Make sure your
disks are as fast as possible before throwing NFS/network into the
picutre.

2. benchmark network. 
How fast is your gigE for ftp transfers? gigE isn't automatically
125Mbytes/s -- you have to set it up right.

Then test NFS. Is your 12-13MB/s read or writes?

Derek Labian wrote:
> 
> I'm really looking for a high performance NFS solution
> and determining the bottlenecks is key for this upgrade.
> 
> We currently have 2 Dedicated NFS servers.  Supermicro
> boxes w/ Dual P3 1Ghz, 1GB RAM and an adaptec 2100s w/
> 128MB cache connected to Dell u160 powervaults.
> 
> All the servers are connected through gigabit ethernet.
> 
> It seems we really start peaking out the disks at about
> 12-13MB a sec.  This seems kind of slow, but the accesses
> are not sequential because of the volume.  The drives
> are 10k RPM btw.
> 
> The servers run FreeBSD (latest) and distribute files to
> 8 other servers.  The average file size is around 5MB
> but peaks up to several hundred MB's depending on whats
> happening on any given day.
> 
> Also, when peak traffic occurs, the NFS processes all
> get stuck in disk access, and the requests start queing
> up.
> 
> For this reason, we have modified the NFSD and NFS Header
> file thats part of the Kernel to support much  more then
> 20 Daemons.
> 
> This help performance dramatically.
> 
> Additionally, we have tried different levels of read ahead
> blocks, block sizes etc.  Read aheads above 1 work fine
> until the load peaks up.  (Since its reading more data)
> 
> Also, smaller then 8k blocks seem to slow it down and
> larger then 8k blocks seem to slow it down.
> 
> Hence we use 8k blocks, 1 read ahead block, UDP.
> 
> So, is there any suggestings for getting more performance
> out of these things, or if we simply need to upgrade further
> what are the suggestions for high performance NFS at a
> reasonable cost.
> 
> Derek
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future
> of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community
> Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now.
> http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en
> _______________________________________________
> NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Influence the future 
of Java(TM) technology. Join the Java Community 
Process(SM) (JCP(SM)) program now. 
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?sunm0004en
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs