Date: Thu, 2 May 2013 16:43:17 -0700 From: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org> To: Graham Allan <allan@physics.umn.edu> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS Performance issue against NetApp Message-ID: <420165EE-BBBF-4E97-B476-58FFE55A52AA@hub.org> In-Reply-To: <20130502221857.GJ32659@physics.umn.edu> References: <834305228.13772274.1367527941142.JavaMail.root@k-state.edu> <75CB6F1E-385D-4E51-876E-7BB8D7140263@hub.org> <20130502221857.GJ32659@physics.umn.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2013-05-02, at 15:18 , Graham Allan <allan@physics.umn.edu> wrote: > On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 02:05:38PM -0700, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >>=20 >> The thing is, I'm not convinced it is a NFS related issue =85 there = are *so* many other variables involved =85 it could be something with = the network stack =85 it could be something with the scheduler =85 it = could be =85 hell, it could be like the guy states in that blog posting = (http://antibsd.wordpress.com/) and be the compiler changes =85=20 >=20 > I'm just watching interestedly from the sidelines, and I hesitate to = ask > because it seems too obvious - maybe I missed something - but have you > run both tests (Linux and FreeBSD) purely with local disk, to get a > baseline independent of NFS? Hadn't thought to do so with Linux, but =85 Linux =85=85. 20732ms, 20117ms, 20935ms, 20130ms, 20560ms FreeBSD .. 28996ms, 24794ms, 24702ms, 23311ms, 24153ms In the case of the following, I umount the file system, change the = settings, mount and then run two runs: FreeBSD, nfs, vfs.nfs.prime_access_cache=3D1 =85 279207ms, 273970ms FreeBSD, nfs, vfs.nfs.prime_access_cache=3D0 =85 279254ms, 274667ms FreeBSD, oldnfs, vfs.nfs.prime_access_cache=3D0 =85 244955ms, 243280ms FreeBSD, oldnfs, vfs.nfs.prime_access_cache =3D1 =85 242014ms, 242393ms Default for vfs.nfs.prime_access_cache appears to be 0 =85
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420165EE-BBBF-4E97-B476-58FFE55A52AA>