From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 nfs client performance Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 19:22:22 -0500 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <16308.8254.89284.377113@charged.uio.no> References: <3FB27670.4C878A84@psu.edu> <3FB29D43.A618973D@psu.edu> <16306.41898.291062.36209@charged.uio.no> <3FB2A738.3F2C90B8@psu.edu> <16306.49310.195265.145519@charged.uio.no> <3FB2DC60.FA7D3E08@psu.edu> <16306.59249.857512.354675@charged.uio.no> <3FB3924B.7450E9F7@psu.edu> <3FB3FDE8.47E819FF@psu.edu> Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 1AKRjJ-0002lo-00 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:22:29 -0800 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AKRjJ-0002d1-65 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:22:29 -0800 To: Jason Holmes In-Reply-To: <3FB3FDE8.47E819FF@psu.edu> 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: >>>>> " " == Jason Holmes writes: > if you want to look at them. One small observation is that > 2.4.22 reaches much larger values of cwnd than test9-bk17, > resulting in a lot fewer calls to functions such as > xprt_cwnd_limited (1861 vs. 2715). Whether or not this means > anything, I don't know. It means that the UDP throughput is slightly more stable. However the thing that surprises me there is that in both cases 'xprt_cwnd_limited cong = 0' is the dominant case. That means basically that you only have one outstanding request on the wire at any point in time (there are only a few cases where cong=256 => 2 requests, and cong=512 => 3 requests). IOW this all appears to be doing synchronous I/O only (both in the case of 2.4.22 and 2.6.0). Note: most of these RPC calls do indeed appear to be something other than WRITE calls. Are they perhaps GETATTR calls? Have you for instance set 'noac', 'actimeo' or something like that? Could you please try using echo "9" >/proc/sys/sunrpc/nfs_debug rather than echo "1". That should give us the debugging info from nfs/read.c and nfs/write.c in addition to what you've already got. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003, 16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL, WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs