Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 19:05:01 +0100 From: Emanuel Strobl <Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: asymmetric NFS transfer rates Message-ID: <200411021905.08044.Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <20041102113112.F23546@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> References: <20041102124750.77588.qmail@web14102.mail.yahoo.com> <200411021355.58139.Emanuel.Strobl@gmx.net> <20041102113112.F23546@alpha.siliconlandmark.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart6008457.DfzRTMEGpv Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Am Dienstag, 2. November 2004 17:50 schrieb Andre Guibert de Bruet: > On Tue, 2 Nov 2004, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 2. November 2004 13:47 schrieb Claus Guttesen: > >>> problems, but I'm wondering why I > >>> can't write to my 5.3-stable NFS server more that > >>> 3,5MB/s while reading gives > >>> me 9,5MB/s? > >> > >> Are you using IDE- or SCSI-disks? Reading is faster > >> than writing on IDE. > > > > Like I wrote, the server writes more than 35MB/s onto the RAID5 array. > > Last time I saw a hard drive which has problems with 10MB/s was 6 years > > ago, no matter of IDE or SCSI. > > You are going by the assumption that the benchmarks are run using > transfers of a single, contiguous, abnormally huge file. In the real > world, things aren't that peachy. Remember to factor in things such as > seek times, drive response latency, driver locking and contention on > Giant (This is a SCSI RAID card, isn't it?), among other things... It's a IDE Raid controller (3ware 7506-4, a real one) and the file is indee= d=20 huge, but not abnormally. I have a harddisk video recorder, so I have lots = of=20 700MB files. Also if I copy my photo collection from the server it takes 5= =20 Minutes but copying _to_ the server it takes almost 15 Minutes and the=20 average file size is 5 MB. Fast Ethernet isn't really suitable for my needs= ,=20 but at least the 10MB/s should be reached. I can't imagine I get better=20 speeds when I upgrade to GbE, (which the important boxes are already, just= =20 not the switch) because NFS in it's current state isn't able to saturate a= =20 100baseTX line, at least in one direction. That's the real anstonishing thi= ng=20 for me. Why does reading staurate 100BaseTX but writes only a third? Thanks, =2DMano > > Regards, > Andy > > | Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > > | Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" --nextPart6008457.DfzRTMEGpv Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBh8xTBylq0S4AzzwRAs1cAJ9UCMsYyZGIYZWB2bySibQ+LtywwQCfbelu +nHNv3uD/DVCMXw43uZOWIg= =WQDG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart6008457.DfzRTMEGpv--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200411021905.08044.Emanuel.Strobl>