From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Some code, and a question
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2005 13:13:57 -0400
Message-ID: <431F1FD5.4@redhat.com>
References: <1126046397.3000.188.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>	 <20050907010219.GA14233@sgi.com>	 <1126103821.16701.8.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>  <431EFF78.6000709@redhat.com> <1126112442.16701.17.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Cc: Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com>, nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1126112442.16701.17.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net

Dan Stromberg wrote:

>On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 10:55 -0400, Peter Staubach wrote:
>  
>
>>Dan Stromberg wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Here's the summary output from my script.  You may find it surprising.
>>>It may have bugs, but so far it seems to be coming up with results that
>>>one might not expect.  This was iterating rsize's and wsize's from 4K to
>>>64K in steps of 1K.  BTW, this is from an AIX 5.1 host to a Solaris 9
>>>host, but the script should run on nearly any unix or linux:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Presumably you have made the configuration changes at least on the Solaris
>>side, /etc/system or some such, to allow these systems to go all the way to
>>a 64K transfer size?  Vanilla Solaris 9 won't do that.
>>    
>>
>
>No I haven't - great lead.  I'll see if I can google that up.  Or if you
>have the incantation at your fingertips...
>
>  
>

For Solaris, you might check out adding something like:

    set nfs:nfs3_max_transfer_size=1048576
    set nfs:nfs4_max_transfer_size=1048576

to /etc/system and then reboot the system.  This will increase the maximum
size of a transfer to 1M.  Alternately, you could use adb to patch a running
system.  The command, "nfsstat -m", should tell you what the limits are for
currently mounted file systems.  You will need to umount and mount any
existing NFS mounted file systems in order for them to be able to use the
new limits.

>>What have you done to factor out the file system on the server?
>>    
>>
>
>Nothing.  Actually, I don't really want to in this case, because it's
>the speed as seen by the enduser that I need to optimize, not the speed
>of NFS alone.  That is, if there's something specific to the combination
>of NFS and the underlying QFS filesystem, I don't want my benchmarking
>to miss that.
>

QFS, huh?  I hope that you have some QFS expertise to know how to tune it
to match what you need.  It is notoriously difficult to tune, with many,
many tunables.  It can be very high speed, but can also be very _not_,
if you are not careful.

    Thanx...

       ps


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs