From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jan 25 01:25:23 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4840B751 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 01:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15D431E34 for ; Sat, 25 Jan 2014 01:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f173.google.com with SMTP id c10so4115122igq.0 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:22 -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=2+8YbEIa62VTGZ+SnoQTSiJJxRv5JI/pAfBo6AdrijA=; b=G9dW0QoWKytrom+1Bkf5Hsb3Bxy/tMR58VifkqiNSWHEcGcGLEmGSPhVymDfYG5tFk HJwpO4zo005TW/bTvXZb6egj64hWU1wgITo+1+kIo2PyMPnh0iTXynkwcwIE1EFFDP70 Zm+QL/1PzK6lTTWEFCxSicOlMtTZzKUKJ6QjRVpkYvXPFt5dGamunDwEQoVJNT3ltUlP dMdoawSwxiUWQ/wAPA+NNHT2bzAV4XO3j+Q8rwC6l9r5iO2m0wTDfWsM1OdllmS0u3Ib /bE9rJSALFq2uF6rerQJ3HI8RrCFhzHwdhfqpT+eMD/sqUf9nn2lqv36T3NiNGmcgIxX PtXg== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.60.105 with SMTP id g9mr7494116igr.14.1390613122604; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:22 -0800 (PST) Sender: jdavidlists@gmail.com Received: by 10.42.170.8 with HTTP; Fri, 24 Jan 2014 17:25:22 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <635382404.16057591.1390611776054.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <635382404.16057591.1390611776054.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:25:22 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: WHhhsk5otJdUmUb7z6JK8naK3us Message-ID: Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE? From: J David To: Rick Macklem Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 01:25:23 -0000 On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Rick Macklem wrote: > This comes back to my suggestion of testing with "-r 32k", since that > seems to be closed to what would be desirable for a real NFS server. > (But, if you have a major application that loves to do 4k reads/writes, > then I understand why you would use "-r 4k".) There are -r 32k examples in my previous message. The testing I am doing covers a broad spectrum of sizes from 1k to 128k, in an attempt to find which NFS settings provide the overall best settings for a variety of sizes, as general-purpose file storage is anything but one consistent block size. The 4k examples demonstrate the problems I am encountering vividly, so the focus has been on them. Thanks!