From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Jul 10 20:02:00 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EEF516A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:02:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from web14102.mail.yahoo.com (web14102.mail.yahoo.com
	[216.136.172.132])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4D91A43D2F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:02:00 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from cguttesen@yahoo.dk)
Message-ID: <20040710200200.55712.qmail@web14102.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [194.248.174.50] by web14102.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:02:00 CEST
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 22:02:00 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Claus=20Guttesen?= <cguttesen@yahoo.dk>
To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <20040710122632.M66667@carver.gumbysoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: nfs-server twice as fast written to as read from
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 20:02:00 -0000

> > mount_nfs -T -3 -r 32768 -w 32768 ulla:/home/claus
nfs

> It sounds like one machine's disk is just plain
> slower than the other's.

You're probably right, copying from the nfs-server (a
PIII Compaq DL-380 with SCSI-disks) to the clients
(two dual PIII with an IDE-disk each) takes longer due
to the slower IDE-disk, while writing to the
nfs-server is faster with the SCSI-disk.

Well, SCSI is _not_ bad on a server ;-)

BTW, setting read- and write-size to 16384 on the
client gave me the "not responding - alive again"
tune.

regards
Claus


Yahoo! Mail (http://dk.mail.yahoo.com) - Gratis: 6 MB lagerplads, spamfilter og virusscan