From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Jan 29 02:37:27 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D5A45506;
 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:37:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com
 [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98C601298;
 Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:37:27 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id e14so1520249iej.4
 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:37:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=ImOtefEV5UD+d9ZE3OvxNvydaThRm3yhcrhw5wSimp4=;
 b=zC2WF2iU4zvS/6mdBsIzqeA1dQTO54A7F3w8WoVEDhrWo+Wh7CTix7oUrlfmCcJZDO
 5tyx2jQGVQ4YTlipRJATAbKP0qaLAE7fBFjwnsb0PNKMQ+L4Ln9DCdZucgXZJHDvNg4P
 LIok2moHefxSjF7L0bvFjglQRyfKSL8sgWeUkoA2qlxqmBDWliwOEZzJsFpjlsKRLDKi
 XNCoFy/mDJBU6pVKoLYfuECr85oc3G1MoK7qmCeJI+pW189CQ2UWavLYM9HMLNQIGeio
 yeL8fOsOv2qP1AAM/NsrsyPxUpcl6t2no2bsyHSEQFDeN0h9sFMHghN6Gj3BxyVItCnJ
 b1Zg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.51.17.101 with SMTP id gd5mr6124613igd.25.1390963046931;
 Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:37:26 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jdavidlists@gmail.com
Received: by 10.42.170.8 with HTTP; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:37:26 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <312973812.17975525.1390955533440.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
References: <CABXB=RQksyZq43=jLw3wJT5vLzuK4h5cgE=Lj4caq1RgOBa8gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <312973812.17975525.1390955533440.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:37:26 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: VVC2ujiT2pgYylxeDvIFsMdka8k
Message-ID: <CABXB=RQj2evY7=Q0_7vbHrQrH3fPkW774gjNxWLwWbRXMzjdDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE?
From: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com>
To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 02:37:27 -0000

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> Hopefully Garrett and/or you will be able to do some testing of it
> and report back w.r.t. performance gains, etc.

OK, it has seen light testing.

As predicted the vtnet drops are eliminated and CPU load is reduced.

The performance is also improved:

Test Before After
SeqWr 1506 7461
SeqRd 566 192015
RndRd 602 218730
RndWr 44 13972

All numbers in kiB/sec.

There were initially still some problems with lousy hostcache values
on the client after the test, which is what causes the iperf
performance to tank after the NFS test, but after a reboot of both
sides and fresh retest, I haven't reproduced that again.  If it comes
back, I'll try to figure out what's going on.

But this definitely looks like a move in the right direction.

Thanks!