Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: "Viren R. Shah" <viren@rstcorp.com> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS server performance (was: NFS performance benchmarks?) Message-ID: <199806111748.NAA08167@fault.rstcorp.com> In-Reply-To: <35814EA0.7847B26E@softweyr.com> References: <199806111217.IAA07801@fault.rstcorp.com> <35814EA0.7847B26E@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>> "Wes" == Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> writes:
Wes> Viren R. Shah wrote:
>>
>> Does anyone know if there are NFS performance benchmarks available?
>> If not, what would be a good series of tests to run to compare
>> relative NFS performance (FreeBSD NFS server vs. Solaris NFS server)?
>> [I looked in /usr/ports/benchmarks, but there isn't anything NFS
>> specific -- it all seems to be either network or CPU benchmarking]
Wes> Are you the Viren Shah of NCWorld Magazine?
Nope.
Wes> I don't find any explicit NFS performance benchmarks, but have you
Wes> tried running iozone or bonnie on an NFS mount?
We tried iozone, and the results were bad (as shown below), which is
why I was trying to see if there were other benchmarks that validated
the iozone results, or not.
We are trying to compare the relative performances of a solaris NFS
server vs. a FreeBSD NFS server (running 2.2.6 late BETA):
IOZONE: auto-test mode
FreeBSD Server Solaris Server
====================== ==================
MB reclen bytes/sec bytes/sec bytes/sec bytes/sec
written read written read
1 512 51737 7117484 486685 7139923
1 1024 48598 11162427 472185 12754985
1 2048 53363 16469678 465276 19026272
1 4096 57415 25860745 492552 26323628
1 8192 56089 30133306 490601 33321942
2 512 52701 6225125 478547 7336163
2 1024 53642 10811569 483381 11907853
2 2048 46550 16377591 461267 18763777
2 4096 55467 22791909 489909 25800971
2 8192 52679 30147920 474295 22596409
4 512 51664 5246158 484840 6519525
Both the iozone tests were run from a SunOS NFS client. As you can see
the write performance is an order of magnitude worse. The local iozone
results for both servers were comparable (though the FreeBSD box had
slightly worse performance)
The FreeBSD server has:
fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 206.29.49.78 netmask 0xffffff80 broadcast 206.29.49.127
ether 00:a0:c9:ce:ea:4a
media: autoselect
This was after we had problems with a 3COM 3c905 in 100Mbit mode (the
box kept silently rebooting. At least with the Intel NIC, it works).
Any ideas, anyone?
Wes> Wes Peters
Thanks
Viren
--
Viren R. Shah
viren@rstcorp.com | "God made a few people perfect
http://www.rstcorp.com/~vshah/ | --the rest He created right-handed"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806111748.NAA08167>