From: dwight@supercomputer.org Subject: Re: RE: Linux client on Solaris 7 NFS server Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:31:36 -0800 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <200401051731.i05HVaa15457@supercomputer.org> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.12] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1AdYZb-0004Qp-NA for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:31:27 -0800 Received: from supercomputer.org ([69.17.34.169] helo=mail.supercomputer.org) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AdYZb-0006Xm-Cp for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:31:27 -0800 To: Ian Kent In-Reply-To: Message from Ian Kent of "Wed, 31 Dec 2003 09:55:11 +0800." Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Ian Kent wrote: > Currently I'm running the RedHat 2.4.20-20.7 kernel. > > I used UDP transport for a long time but have recently changed to TCP for > nearly all my clients. > ... > > My usage is largely read. > > Performance has improved quite a bit as the kernel version has increased. > I can get around 80% (ie. 80% wire speed) the throughput of a 'similar' > Sun. Problem is that most of the Sparc clients can saturate 100Mb (onto a > gigabit backbone) so I don't really know what the difference is. > > Ian Thanks for the information, Ian. So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your performance for Linux clients and Solaris clients with a Solaris server is the same? Or that any difference is not notiable? Would you happen to know what throughput you are seeing with the Linux client? My own, as reported by Ethereal, is about 11 Mbs in this case. My transactions are a combination of read and write (mimicking the common behavior that we use in a production environment). I appreciate the information; I'll try a test of pure reads. And yes, I too have saturated a 100-Mb switch before, though not with NFS. The statistics on the switch in the production environment show that we're nowhere near saturating the switch. For my test environment, there's almost nothing else going on at the time (I.e. one client, one server). While I could just use a cross-over cable and eliminate the switch, I don't see any information indicating that this would improve things at this time. Best Regards, -dwight- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials. Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills. Sign up for IBM's Free Linux Tutorials. Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin. Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs