From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 21:39:55 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECD4D1065670 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:39:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bernard@dugas-family.org) Received: from smtp11.ispronet.com (smtp11.ispronet.com [81.28.196.233]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2E868FC18 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:39:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bernard@dugas-family.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp11.ispronet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38F7BB82F; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:39:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp11.ispronet.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp11.ispronet.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 44945-03; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:39:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.50] (unknown [81.28.194.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp11.ispronet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:39:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <495A9595.6080201@dugas-family.org> Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 22:41:41 +0100 From: Bernard Dugas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; fr-FR; rv:1.7) Gecko/20040616 X-Accept-Language: fr,en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Wojciech Puchar References: <20081216094719.EDCEE1065675@hub.freebsd.org> <495930E4.1030501@dugas-family.org> <20081229230115.F68805@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <4959DFEF.5090407@dugas-family.org> <20081230150507.U87347@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <495A3957.9050002@dugas-family.org> <495A3C72.5070802@unsane.co.uk> <20081230201351.L12391@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20081230201351.L12391@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ispronet.com Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, Vincent Hoffman Subject: Re: Optimising NFS for system files X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 21:39:56 -0000 Wojciech Puchar wrote: >>> This is a Gbps network with only 1 switch between nfs server and >>> client, with less than 0.2ms ping. So bandwidth should not be a > > it should work with near-wire speed on 100Mbit clients. Server and clients are 1Gbps. But i have a 4 factor of performance for reading only ... nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null 5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4% 69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null tar: Removing leading '/' from member names 3.985u 19.779s 4:32.47 8.7% 74+1457k 0+0io 0pf+0w Note : clientusr-amd64 is around 1.3GB and is the same directory exported to client9 /usr with nfs. I have tried on 7.1-RC1 and 7.1-RC2, with amd64 architecture. CPU don't seem to be the limiting factor, more than 80% idle on server, they are either Core2duo on nfsserver : Dec 23 04:52:18 nfsserver kernel: CPU: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU E1200 @ 1.60GHz (1600.01-MHz K8-class CPU) Dec 23 04:52:18 nfsserver kernel: Origin = "GenuineIntel" Id = 0x6fd Stepping = 13 or on client9 : /var/log/messages.3:Dec 29 12:21:20 client9 kernel: CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E4500 @ 2.20GHz (2200.01-MHz K8-class CPU) If anybody can help to look at right places... ? How may i divide the problem ? Or is my simple test wrong ? I use a tar directed to /dev/null to avoid any writing. Best regards, -- Bernard DUGAS Mobile +33 615 333 770