Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 08:19:11 +0300 From: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Hackers" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFS server bottlenecks Message-ID: <C2770526-6570-45E4-A8AC-AADC17332C6E@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <656944923.2668891.1350949001204.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <656944923.2668891.1350949001204.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 23, 2012, at 2:36 AM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 20 October 2012 13:42, Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com> wrote: >>=20 >>> 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. >>=20 >> Thank you very much for your extensive testing! >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> 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? >>=20 >> 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > 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. >=20 > Good luck with it and have fun, rick >=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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" Thanks, I've applied the patch by hand because of some differences and = I'm now rebuilding. In case they are still needed here are the "dd" tests with loopback UDP = mount : http://home.totalterror.net/freebsd/nfstest/udp-dd.html Over udp writing degrades much worse...=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C2770526-6570-45E4-A8AC-AADC17332C6E>