Thomas Graichen <thomas.graichen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Your bonnie setup (in the other email) is possibly a bit flawed in
>> that it writes only 128M files and the server has 128M of memory, so
>> in theory the server doesn't have to write to disk at all. Could you
>> maybe try it again with a file size that's more than twice the server
>> memory size? That's what bonnie++ tells you to do anyway, I don't
>> know about bonnie.
>> Are you using NFSv3 on the server/client? nfsstat will let you know.
> oh yes - you are right - i took 128 because the client had 64 - but
> you are right the server has 128 and that counts here ... it'S v3
> one other idea: does the size of the files matter - so do you get
> different results for say 25, 250 and 2500mb (always first run to
> ignore caching)?
ok - again with 256mb
-------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
-Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
Machine MB K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU K/sec %CPU /sec %CPU
256 5179 35.9 5276 16.5 3501 17.8 4724 30.8 5672 15.5 77.4 5.1
but i just noticed it was nfsv2 (the typical redhat no3 in the nfs script)
will try 3 tomorrow - have to go now
the linux architects
tel: +49-30-308806-13 fax: -77 http://www.innominate.com