Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 01:35:53 +0100 From: Harald Schmalzbauer <h@schmalzbauer.de> To: Melvyn Sopacua <freebsd-questions@webteckies.org>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS performances on 5.1 Message-ID: <200402010135.54238@harrymail> In-Reply-To: <200401311903.41247@harrymail> References: <20040131150221.GA24039@trefle.ens.fr> <200401311711.35680.freebsd-questions@webteckies.org> <200401311903.41247@harrymail>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Description: signed data
Content-Disposition: inline
On Saturday 31 January 2004 19:03, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2004 17:11, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 January 2004 16:02, Jacques Beigbeder wrote:
> > > time dd=3D/fileserver/aFile of=3D/fileserver/otherFile bs=3D32768
> > >
> > >
> > > NFS client time # pkts
> > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > > Solaris 3.11s 2296
> > > Linux Redhat9 2.42s 1929
> > > FreeBSD 5.1 19.72s 14887 <!!!
> > > FreeBSD 4.9 3.04s 6380
> > > FreeBSD 5.2 2.98s 5941
> > >
> > > All FreeBSD uses: mount_nfs -U -3 -r 32768 -w 32768 ...
> > >
> > > Question: is there any tuning on 5.1 to get better performances?
> >
> > Did you read the notes in src/UPDATING saying:
> > NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 5.x IS SLOW:
>
> Could you pleas explain that numbers? I did almost the same test and found
> the following values in MByte/s:
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 5.2 / 4,6 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux -> 5.2 / lockup (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
> FBSD 4.9 -> 5.2 / 2,8 (CLient 233MMX, Server C3 800)
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 5.1 / 6,5 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux -> 5.1 / 9,8 (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 4.9 / 5,8 (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux -> 4.9 / 9,8 (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
> FBSD 4.9 -> 4.9 / 3,0 (Client 233MMX, Server C3 800)
>
> DragonFlyBSD as Server resulted in about 5% more performance than 4.9
> (linear exept Linux Client as it performs with the maximum Ethernet Speed)
>
> My tests were without modifying any rsize/wsize. But even with (rw)size 3=
2k
> i had expected to be able to transfer about 9 MByte/s from a 233MMX box.
> 3MByte/s is absolutely lousy. What hardware do we need for just tranfseri=
ng
> bytes? 1GHz? I think 233 MHz with 64MB for OS should be more than enough.
> Regrettably I haven't had time to install a Linux on the 233 box.
>
> Btw. Linux =3D DebWoody (2.4.22) and all clients have fxp interfaces!
>
> Summary: 5.1 as server was a lot faster than 5.2 as server so is 4.9.
> Fastest was DragonFlyBSD but anyhow, just Linux as Client does a reasonab=
le
> job. And not to forget the broken Linux -> 5.2 support!!!
Oh, I forgot to mention one very important thing: The idle cycles while NFS=
=20
transfers. Like mentioned, the server is a C3 800 Processor with 256MB RAM=
=20
nothing doing else than feeding NFS and SMB Clients (via SAMBA 3.0.1).
In case of my NFS mesurements, 5.2 had 20% idle while feeding 5.2 with=20
3,5MByte/s!!!
Best was Dragonfly which had 60% idle when feeding the Linux box with=20
9.8MByte/s while 4.9 only had 50% idle (while feeding the Linux Client with=
=20
9.8Mbyte/s).
>
> -Harry
--Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Description: signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQBAHEnqBylq0S4AzzwRAmaLAJ9G6/SoP1UrxguDU7TFqI8rQnPoSACbBf66
RR2YY4GlD6QDe6v6W/AUGh0=
=K2EL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Boundary-02=_qnEHAORw/RcY6c9--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200402010135.54238>