From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 30 11:03:37 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B47106564A for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:03:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr) Received: from shiva.jussieu.fr (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.129]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BA378FC1B for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:03:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr) Received: from parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr [134.157.10.1]) by shiva.jussieu.fr (8.14.3/jtpda-5.4) with ESMTP id mBUB3ZaG040355 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:35 +0100 (CET) X-Ids: 166 Received: from niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr [134.157.10.41]) by parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E0498A2D5 for ; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:34 +0100 (CET) Received: by niobe.lpthe.jussieu.fr (Postfix, from userid 2005) id 1D6B215; Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:34 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:34 +0100 From: Michel Talon To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20081230110334.GA43765@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (shiva.jussieu.fr [134.157.0.166]); Tue, 30 Dec 2008 12:03:35 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.94.2/8814/Tue Dec 30 09:43:21 2008 on shiva.jussieu.fr X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Miltered: at jchkmail.jussieu.fr with ID 495A0007.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http : // j-chkmail dot ensmp dot fr)! X-j-chkmail-Enveloppe: 495A0007.001/134.157.10.1/parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/parthe.lpthe.jussieu.fr/ X-j-chkmail-Score: MSGID : 495A0007.001 on jchkmail.jussieu.fr : j-chkmail score : . : R=. U=. O=. B=0.013 -> S=0.013 X-j-chkmail-Status: Ham Subject: Re: Optimising NFS for system files X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 11:03:37 -0000 Bernard Dugas wrote: > So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i > will save the drive access time ? > > Or do you think the NFS network access is so much slow that the disk > access time is just marginal ? > > Do you think i should use something more efficient than NFS ? The VM system in principle does a good job of keeping in memory files which are frequently accessed, so you should not have to do anything special, and moreover i don't think there exists something convenient to force some files in memory (and this would be detrimental to the globalthroughput of the server). As to NFS speed, you should experiment with NFS on TCP and run a large number of nfsd on the server (see nfs_server_flags in rc.conf). For example -n 6 or -n 8. Maybe also experiment with the readsize and writesize. Anyways, i don't think you can expect the same throughput via NFS (say 10 MB/s, or more on Gig ethernet) as on a local disk (40 MB/s or more). -- Michel TALON