From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 2 18:56:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB79D16A4CE; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:56:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from carver.gumbysoft.com (carver.gumbysoft.com [66.220.23.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDB3043D67; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:56:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dwhite@gumbysoft.com) Received: by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C526772DD4; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:56:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by carver.gumbysoft.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C032772DCB; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:56:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 10:56:02 -0800 (PST) From: Doug White To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20041102105534.K63929@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Emanuel Strobl cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: asymmetric NFS transfer rates X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 18:56:03 -0000 On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Robert Watson wrote: > > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > > It's a IDE Raid controller (3ware 7506-4, a real one) and the file is > > indeed huge, but not abnormally. I have a harddisk video recorder, so I > > have lots of 700MB files. Also if I copy my photo collection from the > > server it takes 5 Minutes but copying _to_ the server it takes almost 15 > > Minutes and the average file size is 5 MB. Fast Ethernet isn't really > > suitable for my needs, but at least the 10MB/s should be reached. I > > can't imagine I get better speeds when I upgrade to GbE, (which the > > important boxes are already, just not the switch) because NFS in it's > > current state isn't able to saturate a 100baseTX line, at least in one > > direction. That's the real anstonishing thing for me. Why does reading > > staurate 100BaseTX but writes only a third? > > Have you tried using tcpdump/ethereal to see if there's any significant > packet loss (for good reasons or not) going on? Lots of RPC retransmits > would certainly explain the lower performance, and if that's not it, it > would be good to rule out. The traces might also provide some insight > into the specific I/O operations, letting you see what block sizes are in > use, etc. I've found that dumping to a file with tcpdump and reading with > ethereal is a really good way to get a picture of what's going on with > NFS: ethereal does a very nice job decoding the RPCs, as well as figuring > out what packets are related to each other, etc. It'd also be nice to know the mount options (nfs blocksizes in particular). -- Doug White | FreeBSD: The Power to Serve dwhite@gumbysoft.com | www.FreeBSD.org