From: "Heflin, Roger A." Subject: RE: 2.4.19 NFSALL performance oddity Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 16:27:40 -0500 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <5CA6F03EF05E0046AC5594562398B91653BCAE@poexmb3.conoco.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Trond Myklebust" Return-path: Received: from usamail2.conoco.com ([12.31.208.227]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17yfPj-0002Sl-00 for ; Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:27:43 -0700 To: 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: Update on the issue: And given that I am using MS outlook, who knows what this actual message will look like. Original Test: > 2.2.19 -> 2.4.19 no patches -> 6.5MB/second > 2.4.19nfsall -> 2.4.19 no patches -> 2.00 MB/second > 2.2.19 -> 2.4.19 nfsall patch -> 3.98MB/second > 2.4.19nfsall -> 2.4.19 nfsall patch -> 2.32 MB/second >=20 All 2.4.19 kernels have at least 4GB himem enabled. The 2.4.19 kernels with nfsall have 64GB himem enabled. New tests: The write is a sequential write of a 2GB file,=20 the read is a sequentail read of a 2GB file, the=20 machines memory is just under 2GB, and it appears that the file is just large enough on the read test to make=20 sure little or none of the file is ever read straight=20 from the cache. From the results, it looks like something in nfsall slows down both the client and the server. The=20 picture all of this data paints is rather unclear to me. If anyone sees any other test that would be possibly useful, suggest them. 64GB/4GB/none does not appear to make a=20 difference, for either the client or the server. =20 I did get some wide variations in some limited testing by adjusting the rmem/wmem and the number of nfsds, generally always slowing=20 things down by a large amount, none of the numbers=20 below are any of the especially slow cases. Tests with nohimem on NFSALL 2.4.19 server (32K blocks): nfsd=3D8, mem=3D65536, nohimem Client nohimem write: 2.312MB read: 8.938MB Client himem (64GB) write: 2.312MB read: 8.938MB=09 nfsd=3D8, mem=3D262144, nohimem Client nohimem:=20 write: 2.250MB read: 8.875MB Client himem (64GB) write: 2.312MB=20 read: 8.812MB =09 Tests with 4GB himem on nfsall 2.4.19 server (32k blocks) Client nohimem: write: 2.312MB read: 8.932MB Client 2.2.19: write: 4.50MB read: 8.812MB Tests with himem on NFSALL 2.4.19 server (8k blocks, different machine = that 32k blocksize)) nfsd=3D8, mem=3D65536, himem Client nohimem: write: 1.875MB read: 8.688MB Client himem (64GB) write: 1.875MB read: 8.625MB Tests with 4GB himem server, 2.4.19 server nohimem (8k blocks, = different machine than other servers) nfsd=3D8, mem=3D65536 Client nohimem, 2.4.19 nfsall write: 2.00 MB read: 2.00 MB Client 2.2.19: write: 6.5MB read: 10.0MB Client 2.4.19 no nfs patches, 64GB himem: write: not yet done read: Test with 2.2.19 server - these results seem to be unclear on their = meaning: Client 2.4.19 64GB himem, nfsall: write: 3.875MB read: 4.875MB=09 Client 2.2.19: write: 4.00 MB read: 8.188MB > Roger ------------------------------------------------------- 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