From: "Iain Irwin-Powell" Subject: RE: NFS Performance Between SGI Servers and Linux Clients Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 10:02:27 +0100 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <00f601c324f7$dd06fa90$0b00430a@granger> References: <3ECE100C.6060409@cinesite.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "'Lever, Charles'" , Return-path: Received: from scanman.cinesite.co.uk ([193.203.81.129]) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19KwtF-00034x-00 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 02:06:33 -0700 To: "'Danny Smith'" , In-Reply-To: <3ECE100C.6060409@cinesite.co.uk> 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: Managed to get some quiet time to test the vm.max-readahead tweaking. This definitely makes a difference to the load average on the SGI server end. On this test I was only opening 1 file at a time. Tuning vm.max-readahead down to 8 provided the best combination of server load to client throughput, although the client throughput was compromised by the down tuning (no real surprise there). What I am waiting to get is a 'real world' situation so that I can tune whilst I am seeing the problem to see if we can make it go away or at least alleviate the symptoms. The implication here (to me at least) is that the SGI is having problems servicing all the requests from the Linux clients. I will feed this back to SGI and see what they can come up with. More when I know. Iain ****************************************************************** Iain Irwin-Powell (AKA Iain Powell) Senior Systems Administrator Cinesite Europe Limited 9 Carlisle Street London W1D 3BP T: +442079734000 DDI: +442079734053 ******************************************************************* It's not broken, it just doesn't work the way you expected. ******************************************************************* > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Smith [mailto:dannys@cinesite.co.uk] > Sent: 23 May 2003 13:12 > To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no > Cc: Lever, Charles; Iain Irwin-Powell; nfs@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [NFS] NFS Performance Between SGI Servers and Linux Clients > > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > >>>>>>" " == Charles Lever writes: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > > > > > trond, isn't there a read ahead value in the client that can be > > > tweaked? he could trim down vm_max_readahead, unless there is > > > a max_readahead[] entry for anonymous file systems. > > > >That should partly help to trim it down unless the client is reading > >from > 1 file at a time. In that case the RPC layer will still try to > >issue more reads (up to MIN(16,vm_max_readahead) requests per process) > >if the network and server permits it. > > > >Beware, though, that vm_max_readahead will effect not only > >NFS. Performance on other tasks may suffer. > > > > > I will give this a try in Iain's absence. In the real world we *are* > likely > to be reading multiple files, however for testing purposes we don't have > to. > > Danny > > -- > Danny Smith > Senior Systems Administrator, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd > 020 7973 4000 - x4055 / dannys@cinesite.co.uk > > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: ObjectStore. If flattening out C++ or Java code to make your application fit in a relational database is painful, don't do it! Check out ObjectStore. Now part of Progress Software. http://www.objectstore.net/sourceforge _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs