From: Chris Penney Subject: Re: NFS Performance issues Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:15:25 -0400 Message-ID: <111aefd05051107151d4624b8@mail.gmail.com> References: Reply-To: penney@msu.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Jeff Block 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 1DW2Os-0004b2-Sh for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:06 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.206]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1DW2Os-0002Z0-HK for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:06 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 69so413793wra for ; Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:05 -0700 (PDT) To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: 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: > We have 683MB of test data that we were playing with that represents the > file sizes that our users play with. There are several small files in th= is > set so there is a lot of writes and commits. Our users generally work wi= th > data sets in the multiple gigabyte range. This sounds similar to some of the CAE analysis work that some of the NFS servers I maintain handle. Our Sun 480s w/ Veritas do a reasonable job, but the linux boxes we have blow their doors off. We are using JFS file systems (which was a huge improvement for us) and using the 2.6 device-mapper to stripe across four 1TB luns. We have dual cpu boxes w/ hyperthreading enabled and use 128 nfs threads. All clients use a 32k r/wsize (which was also an improvement). We don't use async for reliability reasons (I'm not sure with out setup it would matter than much). I aslo use the following in sysctl.conf: net.core.rmem_default =3D 262144 net.core.wmem_default =3D 262144 net.core.rmem_max =3D 8388608 net.core.wmem_max =3D 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_rmem =3D 4096 87380 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_wmem =3D 4096 65536 8388608 net.ipv4.tcp_mem =3D 8388608 8388608 8388608 I can't say those tuneing options are formally tested. Perhaps something with more understand could comment on them. Chris ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by Oracle Space Sweepstakes Want to be the first software developer in space? Enter now for the Oracle Space Sweepstakes! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7393&alloc_id=16281&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs