From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 13 15:15:36 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0126106567A; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:15:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46BD88FC22; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:15:35 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAJbcjUyDaFvO/2dsb2JhbACDGp8dsQ+RKYEigyp0BIon X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.56,359,1280721600"; d="scan'208";a="91665124" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 13 Sep 2010 11:15:34 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C860B3F32; Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:15:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 11:15:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG, rmacklem@uoguelph.ca Message-ID: <1846953836.819261.1284390934350.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <201009131503.o8DF3Qau039703@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [24.65.230.102] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.7_GA_2476.RHEL4 (ZimbraWebClient - SAF3 (Mac)/6.0.7_GA_2473.RHEL4_64) Cc: Subject: Re: Why is NFSv4 so slow? X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 15:15:36 -0000 > > Ok ... > > NFS server: > - FreeBSD 8.1-PRERELEASE-20100620 i386 > - intel Atom 330 (1.6 GHz dual-core with HT --> 4-way SMP) > - 4 GB RAM > - re0: > > NFS client: > - FreeBSD 8.1-STABLE-20100908 i386 > - AMD Phenom II X6 1055T (2.8 GHz + "Turbo Core", six-core) > - 4 GB RAM > - re0: > > The machines are connected through a Netgear GS108T > gigabit ethernet switch. > > I umounted and re-mounted the NFS path after every single > dd(1) command, so the data actually comes from the server > instead of from the local cache. I also made sure that > the file was in the cache on the server, so the server's > disk speed is irrelevant. > > Testing with "mount -t nfs": > > 183649990 bytes transferred in 2.596677 secs (70725002 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 2.578746 secs (71216779 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 2.561857 secs (71686277 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 2.629028 secs (69854708 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 2.535422 secs (72433702 bytes/sec) > > Testing with "mount -t newnfs": > > 183649990 bytes transferred in 5.361544 secs (34253192 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 5.401471 secs (33999996 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 5.052138 secs (36350946 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 5.311821 secs (34573829 bytes/sec) > 183649990 bytes transferred in 5.537337 secs (33165760 bytes/sec) > > So, nfs is roughly twice as fast as newnfs, indeed. > > Best regards > Oliver > Thanks for doing the test. I think I can find out what causes the factor of 2 someday. What is really weird is that some people see several orders of magnitude slower (a few Mbytes/sec). Your case was also useful, because you are using the same net interface/driver as the original report of a few Mbytes/sec, so it doesn't appear to be an re problem. Have a good week, rick