From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Feb 2 01:05:14 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190CE16A4CE for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 01:05:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from nef.ens.fr (nef.ens.fr [129.199.96.32]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54CFD43D2F for ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 01:05:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Jacques.Beigbeder@ens.fr) Received: from trefle.ens.fr (trefle.ens.fr [129.199.96.17]) by nef.ens.fr (8.12.10/1.01.28121999) with ESMTP id i12952aW007305 ; Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:05:02 +0100 (CET) Received: from (beig@localhost) by trefle.ens.fr (8.12.3/jb-1.1) X-Authentication-Warning: trefle.ens.fr: beig set sender to Jacques.Beigbeder@ens.fr using -f Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:05:00 +0100 From: Jacques Beigbeder To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20040202090500.GA1656@trefle.ens.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS performances on 5.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:05:14 -0000 >> > On a same Ethernet 100 LAN, I have several Unix and >> > an NFS Solaris fileserver. On these Unix, I tried: >> > time dd=/fileserver/aFile of=/fileserver/otherFile bs=32768 >> > On each try, I use new files, to avoid the impact of file caching. >> > >> > I measured the time spent and the number of Ethernet packets (with snoop). >> > I found: >> > >> > NFS client time # pkts >> > =============== ======= ====== >> > Solaris 3.11s 2296 >> > Linux Redhat9 2.42s 1929 >> > FreeBSD 5.1 19.72s 14887 > > FreeBSD 4.9 3.04s 6380 >> > FreeBSD 5.2 2.98s 5941 >> >> The best way to tune 5.1 is to update it to 5.2 (I'm sure you read all >> the documentation that states that the 5.x branch is a new technology >> release with performance not being an initial goal). Of course, but I have 60+ stations tu upgrade... >> However, those >> numbers still look excessive, so I wonder if you forgot to turn off >> some of the debugging options like WITNESS. I have the kernel from the distribution. -- Jacques Beigbeder | Jacques.Beigbeder@ens.fr Service de Prestations Informatiques | http://www.spi.ens.fr Ecole normale supérieure | 45 rue d'Ulm |Tel : (+33 1)1 44 32 37 96 F75230 Paris cedex 05 |Fax : (+33 1)1 44 32 20 75