From: "Lever, Charles" Subject: RE: NFS and tinygrams Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:47:14 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C61130435E9E2@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: "Linux NFS Mailing List" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1CKh2R-0002mj-Tu for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:47:47 -0700 Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CKh2R-0003Ba-Jf for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 21 Oct 2004 10:47:47 -0700 To: "Dan Stromberg" 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: what's a "tinygram" ? do you mean the NFS write requests aren't all "wsize" bytes? or do you mean the TCP layer is segmenting into small IP packets? these are two separate layers, and do not interact. > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Stromberg [mailto:strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu]=20 > Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2004 1:05 PM > To: Linux NFS Mailing List > Cc: Dan Stromberg > Subject: [NFS] NFS and tinygrams >=20 >=20 >=20 > We have a series of test transfers going, where we are=20 > shuttling data from GFS->NFS V3 over UDP->NFS V3 over TCP->Lustre. >=20 > On the NFS V3 over TCP link, we're seeing a lot of tinygrams,=20 > despite having 8K NFS block sizes turned on, and jumbo=20 > packets enabled (9000 byte MTU). >=20 > The GFS machine runs Redhat 9, the first NFS server also runs=20 > Redhat 9.=20 > The machine copying from NFS to NFS is running AIX 5.1. The=20 > machine copying NFS to Lustre is running RHEL 3. >=20 > I didn't check on the packet sizes of the other legs of the transfer. >=20 > I've verified that we do have jumbo packets being used some=20 > of the time, on that AIX 5.1 -> RHEL 3 hop. However, we're=20 > still getting a pretty large percentage of tinygrams. >=20 > Is there any way of cutting down on the tinygrams, to more=20 > effectively utilize our large MTU? Is there perhaps any sort=20 > of "intent based" packetizing in standard implementations of=20 > NFS on Redhat 9, AIX 5.1, and/or RHEL 3? >=20 > (Yes, we could short circuit the AIX 5.1 part of the=20 > transfer, and that Would make things faster, but it Wouldn't=20 > test what we need to test!) >=20 > Thanks! >=20 > --=20 > Dan Stromberg DCS/NACS/UCI >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on=20 > ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us=20 > what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free=20 > ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more=20 > http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guid> epromo.tmpl >=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: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs