>> On Mon, 2003-06-16 at 10:18, Greg Freemyer wrote:
>> > I normally use the SuSE 8.2 standard kernel (2.4.20 + XFS 1.2 + lots of
>> other patches)
>> >
>> > The NFS performance is pretty poor.
>> >
>> > Has anyone done any NFS performance testing with XFS 1.3pre, or recent
>> 2.4.21 cvs?
>> What do yo mean by 'the NFS performance is pretty poor'? I am running
>> Redhat 8.0 with the kernel upgraded to 2.4.20 + XFS 1.2 and I am happy
>> with the NFS performance. I would like it to be better, but I am not
>> blaming XFS for the performance issue. My NFS performance is
>> 50% of the underlying disk speed. I run with NFS v3, UDP, 8k rsize and
>> wsize. The performance of XFS is better than EXT3 for my tests.
>> I usually use multiple instances of dd from multiple nodes. I care
>> about big files not small files. The small file performance and
>> interactivity is satisfactory though.
>> What are you getting and what do you expect?
>> Craig
Craig,
We have done some basic testing with iometer and 4 clients (I think) and
100Mbit lan (dedicated in a lab).
With Samba Shares I can get almost 100% efficiency across the lan (i.e. 10
MB/sec of data)
With NFS (NVS v3, UDP, default rsize/wsize), I'm only getting about 10%
efficiency (i.e. 1 MB/sec of data).
I have not cared too much previously, but I need to start using NFS soon, and I
need to pick between 3 choices:
1) Work with the SuSE kernel and try to tune it.
2) Use a pure XFS 1.2 kernel (2.4.19 based)
3) Go with a XFS 1.3pre kernel (currently 2.4.20, but apparently soon to be
2.4.21)
If the latest XFS 1.3pre or cvs code seems to be working well with NFS, that is
my preference.
Greg
--
Greg Freemyer
|