From: "Lever, Charles" Subject: RE: iostat wkB/s numbers during testing Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:08:12 -0800 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <6440EA1A6AA1D5118C6900902745938E07D552E3@black.eng.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Return-path: Received: from mx01.netapp.com ([198.95.226.53]) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18jiO1-0002Uk-00 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:08:25 -0800 To: "Paul Heinlein" 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: hi paul- you can check the list archives for more information, but the experiences on this list have been that RAID 5 is generally not a hi-performance back-end solution for Linux NFS servers. i believe the problem is that NFS servers generate lots of small writes, and that's something RAID 5 is not very good at. i can't answer your specific question about the numbers you posted. maybe someone else? > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Heinlein [mailto:heinlein@cse.ogi.edu]=20 > Sent: Friday, February 14, 2003 10:32 AM > To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: [NFS] iostat wkB/s numbers during testing >=20 >=20 > I'm using a dual P-III Compaq DL380 running Red Hat 8.0 to=20 > host a new ATABoy RAID array purchased from Nexsan. It's=20 > connected to our switch via a gig/fiber card based on the=20 > Intel 82542 chipset. >=20 > The service stack (for lack of a better phrase) is >=20 > * ATABoy2 -- six-drive RAID-5 array that presents itself to the host=20 > as a single SCSI device (no multiple LUNs) > * LVM -- 1.0.3, one PV, one VG, one LV (so far :-) > * XFS -- 1.2pre5 > * NFS -- v2/v3, UDP only, 80 nfsd threads > * Samba -- 2.2.7 >=20 > Last night, I set up six NFS clients and one Linux/smbfs=20 > client to run=20 > iozone against the nfs mount/samba share. >=20 > I was keeping track of stats using iostat -x on the server.=20 > My typical wkB/s numbers hovered in the 15000 to 19000 range.=20 > Is that sort of result set consistent with what any of you=20 > have seen for Linux-hosted=20 > NFS RAID exports? >=20 > --Paul Heinlein >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from=20 > Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here=20 > to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all=20 > your SSL security issues.=20 > http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-> bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net=20 > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/n> fs >=20 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs