From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Feb 2 18:08:56 2012 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 080C11065675 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:08:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Received: from ozzie.tundraware.com (ozzie.tundraware.com [75.145.138.73]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6BE8FC08 for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 18:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.2.111] ([12.106.254.160]) (authenticated bits=0) by ozzie.tundraware.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q12I8Col006024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 2 Feb 2012 12:08:12 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from tundra@tundraware.com) Message-ID: <4F2AD107.40703@tundraware.com> Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:08:07 -0600 From: Tim Daneliuk Organization: TundraWare Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: FreeBSD Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (ozzie.tundraware.com [75.145.138.73]); Thu, 02 Feb 2012 12:08:12 -0600 (CST) X-TundraWare-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-TundraWare-MailScanner-ID: q12I8Col006024 X-TundraWare-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-TundraWare-MailScanner-From: tundra@tundraware.com X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Asymmetric NFS Performance X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: tundra@tundraware.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 18:08:56 -0000 Server: FBSD 8.2-STABLE / MTU set to 15000 Client: Linux Mint 12 / MTU set to 8192 NFS Mount Options: rw,soft,intr Problem: Throughput copying from Server to Client is about 2x that when copying a file from client to server. The client does have a SSD whereas the server has conventional SATA drives but ... This problem is evident with either 100- or 1000- speed ethernet so I don't think it is a drive thing since you'd expect to saturate 100-BASE with either type of drive. Things I've Tried So Far: - Increasing the MTUs - This helped speed things up, but the up/down ratio stayed about the same. - Fiddling with rsize and wsize on the client - No real difference Ideas anyone? ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk