Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 18:24:14 -0500 From: Rob Snow <rsnow@lgc.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Async NFS exports? Message-ID: <37BDE39E.21EE705C@lgc.com> References: <199908201813.NAA66892@ns1.cioe.com> <199908202206.PAA65547@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Emm, I guess that answers my earlier question/mail: Why?---> basil# uname -a FreeBSD basil.dympna.com 3.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 3.2-RELEASE #7: Thu Aug 19 23:59:50 CDT 1999 rsnow@basil.dympna.com:/export/current/src/sys/compile/Basil-SMP [Dual PPro-233's] basil# cd /stripe basil# df -k . Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Avail Capacity Mounted on /dev/vinum/stripe 17197511 86511 15735200 1% /stripe basil# Bonnie -s 256 -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU 256 10817 97.3 15805 93.1 6338 41.4 9943 97.5 15796 51.2 basil# mount_nfs -3 localhost:/stripe /mnt basil# cd /mnt basil# Bonnie -s 256 -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU 256 4270 57.6 6639 30.6 1877 11.7 3804 55.3 6201 18.7 Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :I asked this on stable but didn't get a response... Would I get any > :performance increases by mounting NFS exported partition as Async? > : > :Would my soul be tormented in purgatory for doing it? > : > :Just to be clear... I am wondering if mounting (on the NFS _server_) a > :partition (that is exportable) as async will have any performance > :benefits to the NFS clients? > : > :-Steve > > Ok, I've run some more tests. Basically you want to run NFSv3 under > CURRENT and you want to run at least 3 nfsiod's. On a 100BaseTX network > this will give you unsaturated write performance in the ballpark of > 9 MBytes/sec. Saturated write performance, that is where you write more > then the client-side buffer cache can handle, will stabilize at > 2.5 MBytes/sec. I have a patch for CURRENT which will increase the > saturated write performance to 4.5 MBytes/sec (basically by moving the > nfs_commit() from nfs_writebp() to nfs_doio() so it can be asynchronized). > Hopefully that patch will go in soon but there's a pretty big backlog of > patches that haven't gone in yet, some over a week and a half old, so... > > In anycase, even without the patch if you run a couple of nfsiod's and > do not saturated the buffer cache you should get optimal performance. > > Backing-porting the patch for nfs_commit to STABLE is possible but is > not likely to help much because the major performance restriction in > STABLE is related to buffer cache management, not NFS. > > OS #nfsiod's unsaturated saturated > write perf. write perf. > ( ..... 100BASETX ...... ) > > CURRENT 0 9 MBytes/sec 2.5 MBytes/sec > CURRENT 4 9 MBytes/sec 4.5 MBytes/sec(w/patch) > > STABLE 0 3 MBytes/sec 3 MBytes/sec(1) > STABLE 4 4 MBytes/sec 3 MBytes/sec(1) > > note(1): saturated performance under STABLE is extremely inconsistant > > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37BDE39E.21EE705C>