From: Jeff Blaine Subject: Re: 2.4.21 NFSv3 performance graph Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:54:55 -0500 Message-ID: <41ED233F.2070500@mitre.org> References: <41E816B3.4030702@mitre.org> <1105747170.28849.22.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed 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 4.30) id 1CqulA-0003ED-8Y for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:55:08 -0800 Received: from smtp-bedford-dr-x.mitre.org ([192.160.51.65] helo=smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1Cqul8-0002Jz-2N for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:55:07 -0800 Received: from smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id j0IEt4O23253 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:55:04 -0500 Received: from smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp-bedford-dr.mitre.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 368CC4F8D7 for ; Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:55:04 -0500 (EST) To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1105747170.28849.22.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net 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: Trond Myklebust wrote: > fr den 14.01.2005 Klokka 14:00 (-0500) skreiv Jeff Blaine: >=20 >>Can anyone tell me what is happening in the graph at the URL >>below? I can replicate it on any Linux box running 2.4.21 >>and changing rsize/wsize doesn't affect it at all. This >>was captured from a 2.6GHz P4 client machine. Same thing >>is visible with a Dual 3GHz Xeon box with 4GB memory as a >>client. A Solaris 9 client does not display this "falling >>on face" behavior. >> >>http://www.kickflop.net/temp/sol9-server-linux2421-client-gigE-ag930m_1= 0533_image001.gif >=20 > Firstly, you should always use the '-c' flag when measuring NFS client > performance. Otherwise, you are basically just measuring the speed with > which your machine can write to the local page cache (which may indeed > explain your "knee" at 1MB here - that would be where the client starts > to force a flush to disk). Firstly, Iozone manual: "If you use a file size that is larger than the amount of memory in the client then the =91c=92 flag is not needed." I used a file size that is larger than the amount of memory in the client. > Secondly, have you actually read the NFS FAQ and NFS HOWTO entries on > how to tune for performance? Particularly the entries on TCP vs. UDP, > and how Solaris clients default to the former. Secondly, Yes, I have *actually* read the NFS FAQ and NFS HOWTO entries on how to tune for performance. It was a pretty simple question. I don't know what all the attitude is about. Do you have an answer you can share with me or not? Anyone else? ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs