From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 1 05:01:04 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB1D11065E01 for ; Tue, 1 May 2012 05:01:04 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AB838FC12 for ; Tue, 1 May 2012 05:01:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q4150oZr005918; Tue, 1 May 2012 07:00:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost) by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id q4150nGL005915; Tue, 1 May 2012 07:00:50 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl) Date: Tue, 1 May 2012 07:00:49 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar To: Peter Jeremy In-Reply-To: <20120430085748.GA56921@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Message-ID: References: <20120430085748.GA56921@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 01 May 2012 07:00:50 +0200 (CEST) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS - slow X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 05:01:05 -0000 i tried nfsv4, tested under FreeBSD over localhost and it is roughly the same. am i doing something wrong? On Mon, 30 Apr 2012, Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2012-Apr-27 22:05:42 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> is there any way to speed up NFS server? > ... >> - write works terribly. it performs sync on every write IMHO, > > You don't mention which NFS server or NFS version you are using but > for "traditional" NFS, this is by design. The NFS server is stateless > and NFS server failures are transparent (other than time-wise) to the > client. This means that once the server acknowledges a write, it > guarantees the client will be able to later retrieve that data, even > if the server crashes. This implies that the server needs to do a > synchronous write to disk before it can return the acknowledgement > back to the client. > > -- > Peter Jeremy >