Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:24:14 -0500 From: Rob Snow <rsnow@lgc.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Async NFS exports? Message-ID: <37BDE39E.21EE705C@lgc.com> References: <199908201813.NAA66892@ns1.cioe.com> <199908202206.PAA65547@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Emm, I guess that answers my earlier question/mail:
Why?--->
basil# uname -a
FreeBSD basil.dympna.com 3.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE #7: Thu Aug 19
23:59:50 CDT 1999
rsnow@basil.dympna.com:/export/current/src/sys/compile/Basil-SMP
[Dual PPro-233's]
basil# cd /stripe
basil# df -k .
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on
/dev/vinum/stripe 17197511 86511 15735200 1% /stripe
basil# Bonnie -s 256
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
256 10817 97.3 15805 93.1 6338 41.4 9943 97.5 15796 51.2
basil# mount_nfs -3 localhost:/stripe /mnt
basil# cd /mnt
basil# Bonnie -s 256
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU
256 4270 57.6 6639 30.6 1877 11.7 3804 55.3 6201 18.7
Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :I asked this on stable but didn't get a response... Would I get any
> :performance increases by mounting NFS exported partition as Async?
> :
> :Would my soul be tormented in purgatory for doing it?
> :
> :Just to be clear... I am wondering if mounting (on the NFS _server_) a
> :partition (that is exportable) as async will have any performance
> :benefits to the NFS clients?
> :
> :-Steve
>
> Ok, I've run some more tests. Basically you want to run NFSv3 under
> CURRENT and you want to run at least 3 nfsiod's. On a 100BaseTX network
> this will give you unsaturated write performance in the ballpark of
> 9 MBytes/sec. Saturated write performance, that is where you write more
> then the client-side buffer cache can handle, will stabilize at
> 2.5 MBytes/sec. I have a patch for CURRENT which will increase the
> saturated write performance to 4.5 MBytes/sec (basically by moving the
> nfs_commit() from nfs_writebp() to nfs_doio() so it can be asynchronized).
> Hopefully that patch will go in soon but there's a pretty big backlog of
> patches that haven't gone in yet, some over a week and a half old, so...
>
> In anycase, even without the patch if you run a couple of nfsiod's and
> do not saturated the buffer cache you should get optimal performance.
>
> Backing-porting the patch for nfs_commit to STABLE is possible but is
> not likely to help much because the major performance restriction in
> STABLE is related to buffer cache management, not NFS.
>
> OS #nfsiod's unsaturated saturated
> write perf. write perf.
> ( ..... 100BASETX ...... )
>
> CURRENT 0 9 MBytes/sec 2.5 MBytes/sec
> CURRENT 4 9 MBytes/sec 4.5 MBytes/sec(w/patch)
>
> STABLE 0 3 MBytes/sec 3 MBytes/sec(1)
> STABLE 4 4 MBytes/sec 3 MBytes/sec(1)
>
> note(1): saturated performance under STABLE is extremely inconsistant
>
> -Matt
> Matthew Dillon
> <dillon@backplane.com>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37BDE39E.21EE705C>