Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:35:53 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> To: Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd-questions@webteckies.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS performances on 5.1 Message-ID: <200402010135.54238@harrymail> In-Reply-To: <200401311903.41247@harrymail> References: <20040131150221.GA24039@trefle.ens.fr> <200401311711.35680.freebsd-questions@webteckies.org> <200401311903.41247@harrymail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 31 January 2004 19:03, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote: > On Saturday 31 January 2004 17:11, Melvyn Sopacua wrote: > > On Saturday 31 January 2004 16:02, Jacques Beigbeder wrote: > > > time dd=3D/fileserver/aFile of=3D/fileserver/otherFile bs=3D32768 > > > > > > > > > NFS client time # pkts > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D = =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > Solaris 3.11s 2296 > > > Linux Redhat9 2.42s 1929 > > > FreeBSD 5.1 19.72s 14887 <!!! > > > FreeBSD 4.9 3.04s 6380 > > > FreeBSD 5.2 2.98s 5941 > > > > > > All FreeBSD uses: mount_nfs -U -3 -r 32768 -w 32768 ... > > > > > > Question: is there any tuning on 5.1 to get better performances? > > > > Did you read the notes in src/UPDATING saying: > > NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 5.x IS SLOW: > > Could you pleas explain that numbers? I did almost the same test and found > the following values in MByte/s: > > FBSD 5.2 -> 5.2 / 4,6 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800) > Linux -> 5.2 / lockup (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800) > FBSD 4.9 -> 5.2 / 2,8 (CLient 233MMX, Server C3 800) > > FBSD 5.2 -> 5.1 / 6,5 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800) > Linux -> 5.1 / 9,8 (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800) > > FBSD 5.2 -> 4.9 / 5,8 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800) > Linux -> 4.9 / 9,8 (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800) > FBSD 4.9 -> 4.9 / 3,0 (Client 233MMX, Server C3 800) > > DragonFlyBSD as Server resulted in about 5% more performance than 4.9 > (linear exept Linux Client as it performs with the maximum Ethernet Speed) > > My tests were without modifying any rsize/wsize. But even with (rw)size 3= 2k > i had expected to be able to transfer about 9 MByte/s from a 233MMX box. > 3MByte/s is absolutely lousy. What hardware do we need for just tranfseri= ng > bytes? 1GHz? I think 233 MHz with 64MB for OS should be more than enough. > Regrettably I haven't had time to install a Linux on the 233 box. > > Btw. Linux =3D DebWoody (2.4.22) and all clients have fxp interfaces! > > Summary: 5.1 as server was a lot faster than 5.2 as server so is 4.9. > Fastest was DragonFlyBSD but anyhow, just Linux as Client does a reasonab= le > job. And not to forget the broken Linux -> 5.2 support!!! Oh, I forgot to mention one very important thing: The idle cycles while NFS= =20 transfers. Like mentioned, the server is a C3 800 Processor with 256MB RAM= =20 nothing doing else than feeding NFS and SMB Clients (via SAMBA 3.0.1). In case of my NFS mesurements, 5.2 had 20% idle while feeding 5.2 with=20 3,5MByte/s!!! Best was Dragonfly which had 60% idle when feeding the Linux box with=20 9.8MByte/s while 4.9 only had 50% idle (while feeding the Linux Client with= =20 9.8Mbyte/s). > > -Harry --Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBAHEnqBylq0S4AzzwRAmaLAJ9G6/SoP1UrxguDU7TFqI8rQnPoSACbBf66 RR2YY4GlD6QDe6v6W/AUGh0= =K2EL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402010135.54238>