Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> Subject: Re: NFS server bottlenecks Message-ID: <656944923.2668891.1350949001204.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <CAF-QHFWY0drcrUpo7GGD1zQNSDWsEeB_LHAjEbUKrX2ovQHNxw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ivan Voras wrote: > On 20 October 2012 13:42, Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Here are the results from testing both patches : > > http://home.totalterror.net/freebsd/nfstest/results.html > > Both tests ran for about 14 hours ( a bit too much, but I wanted to > > compare different zfs recordsize settings ), > > and were done first after a fresh reboot. > > The only noticeable difference seems to be much more context > > switches with Ivan's patch. > > Thank you very much for your extensive testing! > > I don't know how to interpret the rise in context switches; as this is > kernel code, I'd expect no context switches. I hope someone else can > explain. > > But, you have also shown that my patch doesn't do any better than > Rick's even on a fairly large configuration, so I don't think there's > value in adding the extra complexity, and Rick knows NFS much better > than I do. > > But there are a few things other than that I'm interested in: like why > does your load average spike almost to 20-ties, and how come that with > 24 drives in RAID-10 you only push through 600 MBit/s through the 10 > GBit/s Ethernet. Have you tested your drive setup locally (AESNI > shouldn't be a bottleneck, you should be able to encrypt well into > Gbyte/s range) and the network? > > If you have the time, could you repeat the tests but with a recent > Samba server and a CIFS mount on the client side? This is probably not > important, but I'm just curious of how would it perform on your > machine. Oh, I realized that, if you are testing 9/stable (and not head), that you won't have r227809. Without that, all reads on a given file will be serialized, because the server will acquire an exclusive lock on the vnode. The patch for r227809 in head is at: http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/lkshared.patch This should apply fine to a 9 system (but not 8.n), I think. Good luck with it and have fun, rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?656944923.2668891.1350949001204.JavaMail.root>