From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 17 20:22:26 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 9DD1D106564A for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:22:26 +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 58CEB8FC16 for ; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:22:26 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEAEhLq02DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACET6IEsmCPRIEpg056BI4D X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,228,1301889600"; d="scan'208";a="117727089" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 17 Apr 2011 16:22:25 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6095DB3F3E; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:22:25 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:22:25 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Bob Friesenhahn Message-ID: <339303189.168341.1303071745334.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: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE7 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFC: make the experimental NFS subsystem the default one 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: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 20:22:26 -0000 > > > > Was it read rate you were referring to or something else? > > Yes, read rate. Large file read performance was much better between > two Solaris systems compared with Solaris as the server and FreeBSD as > the client. This is when using gigabit ethernet. > I know it sounds like I'm dodging the bullet, but my experience has been that much slower has usually been related to the network layer. (There were some krpc transport related issues in FreeBSD8 that could cause abissmal performance is certain cases. I think/hope those are all fixed now.) Here I have a Solaris10 box where the net interface drops a packet repeatedly under one load situation. I also have a laptop where the low end Realtek chip drops packets, as reported by the stats from the chip (this latter one appears to be a pure hardware issue). Both result in really slow NFS perf. when you bump into them. The traffic that NFS generates looks very different than what a bulk data transfer's does. It tends to be small segments in both directions on the TCP connection and then bursts of TCP segments going one way. (It is usually a segment in the burst or a TCP segment going the opposite way at the time of the burst that gets dropped.) If you can easily reproduce the problem, you could capture a packet trace (I wouldn't need a huge one, just enough of the slow stuff to see retransmits, etc) and email it to me, if you want. Others might be able to comment on good/not so good experiences with various net chips/drivers they've used NFS with? Anyhow you mentioned that you saw this on the regular NFS client, so I guess I won't be in trouble if the new one is slow too:-) rick