Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:32:49 -0500 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Doug Poland <doug@polands.org> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Impoving NFS performance Message-ID: <02010916324901.43215@proxy.the-i-pa.com> In-Reply-To: <20020108210819.A5558@polands.org> References: <02010818414501.05084@proxy.the-i-pa.com> <20020108210819.A5558@polands.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks to everyone who responded. On Tuesday 08 January 2002 22:08, Doug Poland wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 06:41:45PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote: > > Ran some tests today to try to determine where some bottlenecks are > > occurring in a recently installed WAN and found something rather > > disturbing. In tests, NFS is anywhere from 4 to 20 times slower than SMB > > or FTP file transfer. FTP = ~80k/sec > > SMB = ~60k/sec > > NFS = ~25k/sec (although one test showed 2.5k/sec - ugh!) > > Fellow I work with claims that this is just the way NFS is and that we > > should abandon it for other file-sharing methods. > > Anyone have any light to shed on this? Is NFS inherently slower than SMB > > and other protocols? If no, what can be done to speed things up? > > Here's some options I use after some research: > > -o nfsv3,intr,rdirplus,-r=32768,-w=32768 > > I've never measured the performance against other protocols but this gave > me acceptable performance on a small LAN. YMMV. Never did figure out how > to get this to work via fstab. I've been mounting remote exports via shell > script in /usr/local/etc/rc.d. If you use these and can get the mounts to > work via fstab, I'd appreciate some guidance. I'm using FTP as a reference point to gauge how well NFS is performing. This link is activly in use, so I can't be 100% sure of the accuracy of the results (since someone else might jump in and tie up the line and skew my results) but here is the basic method I've been using: Run an FTP transfer, then run an NFS transfer and note the data rate for each. Do this two or three time (depending on how consistent the results are) and get an average. I'm assuming that FTP is the fastest that file transfer can reasonably be expected to go. With the default options, NFS tranfser was about 33% of what FTP could do. After mounting with the options you suggested, NFS is ~80% of FTP. This is acceptable and will probably be what we'll stick with. I may do some more performance testing in the future, and if I do I'll post the results somewhere publicly. -- Bill Moran Potential Technology technical services http://www.potentialtech.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?02010916324901.43215>