From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 7 23:13:31 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCBCF106564A for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:13:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96D858FC08 for ; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 23:13:31 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqAEAOT5Z06DaFvO/2dsb2JhbABDDoRHpBWBRgEBAQECAQEBASArIAsFFg4KAgINEgcCKQEJJgYIBwQBHASHVASmApF6gSyELoERBJEgghKJfYYuM1Q X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,347,1312171200"; d="scan'208";a="136868082" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2011 19:13:30 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90E64B3F32; Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:13:30 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2011 19:13:30 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: David Brodbeck Message-ID: <12598691.949771.1315437210575.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Slow NFSv4 performance, was: Re: ZFSv28+NFSv4 poor file creation performance, "sync=disabled" has no effect X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 23:13:31 -0000 David Brodbeck wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek > wrote: > > > It would be good if you could try your test on FreeBSD directly. > > This > > way we could see if ZFS is to blame or NFS. > > > > Okay, it appears it is in fact an NFSv4 problem, and I've been barking > up > the wrong tree. I shared out an NFSv4 mountpoint with a UFS ramdisk as > the > backing store, and I got the same slow results. I was fooled by the > fact > that the numbers were similar to what I got using OpenSolaris with the > ZIL > enabled. (This is what I get for making assumptions.) > > Interestingly enough, if I use NFSv3 instead of NFSv4, performance > increases > dramatically. > Oops, it turned out that the 121 Opens for Fedora15 NFSv4 was because I had delegations enabled on the server (which is not the default). When I disabled that, I saw 61 Opens, just like the FreeBSD client and as I would have expected. So, the # of Opens is not the issue. Looking at the packet trace, I did notice that the Open compound is rather complex. It includes the following Ops: PUTFH SAVEFH OPEN GETFH GETATTR RESTOREFH GETATTR (most of these, except SAVEFH/RESTOREFH result in at least one VOP_xxx().) But, I'm afraid that doesn't really help you. Sorry, but no inspiration here, rick ps: Please ignore the last post. It was mostly irrelevant, except that enabling delegations will make it even worse in this case. > It appears it's FreeBSD's NFSv4 server, or the way it's interacting > with > Linux's client, that's the culprit here. I'm not sure if there are > knobs I > should be tweaking to make it perform better; any suggestions on what > to try > next? > > -- > David Brodbeck > System Administrator, Linguistics > University of Washington > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-fs@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-fs-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"