Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 17:15:51 -0500 From: Josh Paetzel <josh@tcbug.org> To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Cc: Terry Kennedy <TERRY@tmk.com> Subject: Re: Weird Linux - FreeBSD/ZFS NFSv4 interoperability problem Message-ID: <201009121716.17813.josh@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <954605288.782335.1284305288639.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <954605288.782335.1284305288639.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sunday 12 September 2010 10:28:08 Rick Macklem wrote: > > > A couple of people have reported very slow read rates for the NFSv4 > > > client (actually the experimental client, since they see it for > > > NFSv3 too). If you could easily do the following, using a FreeBSD8.1 > > > or newer client: > > > # mount -t nfs -o nfsv4 <any-server>:/path <mnt-path> > > > - cd to anywhere in the mount that has a 100Mbyte+ file > > > # dd if=<100Mbyte+ file> of=/dev/null bs=1m > > > > > > and then report what read rate you see along with the client's > > > machine-arch/# of cores/ram size/network driver used by the mount > > > > > > rick > > > ps: Btw, anyone else who can do this test, it would be appreciated. > > > > > > If you aren't set up for NFSv4, you can do an NFSv3 mount using > > > the exp. client instead. > > > # mount -t newnfs -o nfsv3 <any-server>:/path <mnt-path> > > > > On 8-STABLE (both client and server). First test is NFSv3 on the > > standard > > client: > > > > (0:842) new-gate:~terry# mount -t nfs -o nfsv4 new-rz1:/data /foo > > [tcp6] new-rz1:/data: NFSPROC_NULL: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low > > version = 2, high version = 3 > > [tcp] new-rz1:/data: NFSPROC_NULL: RPC: Program/version mismatch; low > > version = 2, high version = 3 > > > > ^C > > (1:843) new-gate:~terry# mount -t nfs -o nfsv3 new-rz1:/data /foo > > [...] > > (0:869) new-gate:/foo/Backups/Suzanne VAIO# dd if=0cff3d7b_VOL.spf > > of=/dev/null bs=1m > > 6010+1 records in > > 6010+1 records out > > 6301945344 bytes transferred in 69.730064 secs (90376302 bytes/sec) > > > > Now, let's try the newnfs client (cache should have been primed by the > > > first run, so we'd expect this to be faster): > Just thought I'd mention that, since it is a different mount, the caches > won't be primed, which is good, because that would mask differences. > > > (0:879) new-gate:/tmp# umount /foo > > (0:880) new-gate:/tmp# mount -t newnfs -o nfsv3 new-rz1:/data /foo > > (0:881) new-gate:/tmp# cd /foo/Backups/Suzanne\ VAIO/ > > (0:882) new-gate:/foo/Backups/Suzanne VAIO# dd if=0cff3d7b_VOL.spf > > of=/dev/null bs=1m > > 6010+1 records in > > 6010+1 records out > > 6301945344 bytes transferred in 135.927222 secs (46362644 bytes/sec) > > > > Hmmm. Half the performance. The problem isn't the disk speed on the > > > server: > Ok, good. You aren't seeing what the two guys reported (they were really > slow, at less than 2Mbytes/sec). If you would like to, you could try the > following, since the two clients use different default r/w sizes. > > # mount -t newnfs -o nfsv3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 new-rz1:/data /foo > > and see how it changes the read rate. I don't know why there is a > factor of 2 difference (if it isn't the different r/w size), but it > will probably get resolved as I bring the experimental client up to date. > > Thanks a lot for doing the test and giving me a data point, rick root@jester1d / ->mount -t nfs -o wsize=65536,rsize=65536 servant.ixsystems.com:/a/isos /mnt root@jester1d / ->cd /mnt root@jester1d /mnt ->dd if=PCBSD8-STABLE-20100420-x64-DVD.iso of=/dev/null bs=1m 3344+1 records in 3344+1 records out 3507386368 bytes transferred in 34.562502 secs (101479528 bytes/sec) root@jester1d /mnt ->cd .. root@jester1d / ->umount /mnt root@jester1d / ->mount -t newnfs -o nfsv3,rsize=65536,wsize=65536 servant.ixsystems.com:/a/isos /mnt root@jester1d / ->cd /mnt root@jester1d /mnt ->dd if=PCBSD8-STABLE-20100420-x64-DVD.iso of=/dev/null bs=1m 345+0 records in 345+0 records out 361758720 bytes transferred in 46.191718 secs (7831679 bytes/sec) The first run hits network limits. Both machines are nehalems, intel NICs, I can give details if needed. -- Thanks, Josh Paetzel [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJMjVExAAoJEKFq1/n1feG2IxkIALQxDI0wfgMcj72oKxqEI4IQ 01vae+HcO8jO1alBtUR9bJs1e2EepVYfGw+IhBzYV0tZDo5GMw1csoOqHJtmH6hP EeyV3bOO4wTjNxwbahNLv6UHC+OVgjNcDcDZIbUeOqTGEf/cLZmEa4bBYcyx0wIu WIzsjVr0Etjek8GUpkmm0bVmok7huP5LY/I8rfoRjSGNK9PGQM3GL+6RCYcXpdGm Gh7XsIuUa0dSNsCS2egnR3qFLVr+bKFTIe/njTjsCrZ9byqdlbgS7kRsb4FpWDaS vGgJHzurPX7D5dSmIxVIvZygVogwrHJupLUSJjAXJ+CRSMgS6g4NyXfzmanS1Zg= =G8FU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009121716.17813.josh>