Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 16:00:01 +0300 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Subject: Re: NFS server bottlenecks Message-ID: <C10B14C4-943E-47CC-B6A7-4596A2D11D73@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAF-QHFWY0drcrUpo7GGD1zQNSDWsEeB_LHAjEbUKrX2ovQHNxw@mail.gmail.com> References: <937460294.2185822.1350093954059.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <302BF685-4B9D-49C8-8000-8D0F6540C8F7@gmail.com> <k5gtdh$nc0$1@ger.gmane.org> <0857D79A-6276-433F-9603-D52125CF190F@gmail.com> <CAF-QHFUU0hhtRNK1_p9zks2w%2Be22bfWOtv%2BXaqgFqTiURcJBbQ@mail.gmail.com> <6DAAB1E6-4AC7-4B08-8CAD-0D8584D039DE@gmail.com> <23D7CB3A-BD66-427E-A7F5-6C9D3890EE1B@gmail.com> <CAF-QHFWY0drcrUpo7GGD1zQNSDWsEeB_LHAjEbUKrX2ovQHNxw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 20, 2012, at 3:11 PM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 20 October 2012 13:42, Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 >> Here are the results from testing both patches : = http://home.totalterror.net/freebsd/nfstest/results.html >> Both tests ran for about 14 hours ( a bit too much, but I wanted to = compare different zfs recordsize settings ), >> and were done first after a fresh reboot. >> The only noticeable difference seems to be much more context switches = with Ivan's patch. >=20 > Thank you very much for your extensive testing! >=20 > I don't know how to interpret the rise in context switches; as this is > kernel code, I'd expect no context switches. I hope someone else can > explain. >=20 > But, you have also shown that my patch doesn't do any better than > Rick's even on a fairly large configuration, so I don't think there's > value in adding the extra complexity, and Rick knows NFS much better > than I do. >=20 > But there are a few things other than that I'm interested in: like why > does your load average spike almost to 20-ties, and how come that with > 24 drives in RAID-10 you only push through 600 MBit/s through the 10 > GBit/s Ethernet. Have you tested your drive setup locally (AESNI > shouldn't be a bottleneck, you should be able to encrypt well into > Gbyte/s range) and the network? >=20 > If you have the time, could you repeat the tests but with a recent > Samba server and a CIFS mount on the client side? This is probably not > important, but I'm just curious of how would it perform on your > machine. The first iozone local run finished, I'll paste just the result here, = and also the same test over NFS for comparison: (This is iozone doing 8k sized IO ops, on ZFS dataset with = recordsize=3D8k) NFS: random = random bkwd record stride =20 KB reclen write rewrite read reread read = write read rewrite read =20 33554432 8 4973 5522 2930 2906 2908 = 3886 =20 Local: random = random bkwd record stride =20 KB reclen write rewrite read reread read = write read rewrite read =20 33554432 8 34740 41390 135442 142534 24992 = 12493 =20 P.S.: I forgot to mention that the network is with 9K mtu.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C10B14C4-943E-47CC-B6A7-4596A2D11D73>