From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 29 23:08:44 2014 Return-Path: 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 615542BC; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1393710F2; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:08:43 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,744,1384318800"; d="scan'208";a="92187781" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 29 Jan 2014 18:08:31 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDFCB4062; Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:08:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 18:08:31 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: J David Message-ID: <2032299860.18637455.1391036911579.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.209] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.1_GA_2790 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.1_GA_2790) Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, Garrett Wollman X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2014 23:08:44 -0000 J David wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Rick Macklem > 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. > Oops, ignore most of what I said about FHA. I now see that the default is 8 nfsd per FH, which should handle readaheads. However, it does remind me that it would be nice to try cranking up the readahead value for the client mount. "-o readahead=8" would be a good one to try (you can go as high as 16, if you'd like). Have fun with it, rick > 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! > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >