Re: NFSv3 client for Linux-2.2.5 ready for alpha testing...

Andrew Schretter (schrett@math.duke.edu)
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:56:52 -0400 (EDT)


Eric,
Sorry I was so vague. I understand what you are saying, but I doubt
the disk speed of the server is the major bottleneck (for one thing I used
an Ultra 60 that was not serving anything except the private export used
for testing.) The problems I have been encountering (for almost 2 years
now) can be summarized as follows (reproducible results).

These tests were done on a 100Mb switched network (Cisco 5000 switch)
with minimal network/processor load on the systems.

S1 = Sun Ultra 60 Solaris 2.6 100Mb Ethernet
S2 = Sun Ultra 60 Solaris 2.6 100Mb Ethernet
S3 = Sun Ultra 1 140Mhz Solaris 2.6 10Mb Ethernet
L1 = Linux 450 Pentium II 100Mb Ethernet NFSV2
L2 = Linux 450 Pentium II 100Mb Ethernet NFSV3
...Speeds are reported Read/Write in megabytes per second...

CLIENTS
S1 S2 S3 L1 L2
S
E S1 ** 8.0/7.5 0.8/0.7 7.0/0.5 0.5/4.5
R
V L1 8.0/7.5 8.0/7.5 0.8/0.8 ** 8.0/7.0
E
R

As you can see, performance is quite nice except for a few isolated cases.

You'll notice that a linux server is the way to go (except that I need
locking so I need knfsd and I'm still experimenting with it for
stability).

I have a much more detailed summary I can send you but this is the basics
of it.

In short, my network can read/write very fast Solaris -> Solaris and
Linux -> Linux, but NFSV2 Linux writes slow to Solaris and NFSV3 Linux
reads slow from Solaris.

Andrew

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Eric Werme USG wrote:
>
> Andrew Schretter wrote:
> >
> > FINALLY, I can write from a linux machine via nfs to a Solaris server
> > at right around 2 megabytes per second (100MB Lan).
>
> Huh?
>
> I don't get this.. Everyone but me appears to have problems writing to
> Solaris NFS server!
>
> Also, the fs that it is writing to is a raid0 array spread across 18
> drives..
>
> The synchronous writes on NFS V2 "require" that the data be safely on disk
> before a reply is made. Even the V3 clients with unstable writes should?
> must? had better do a COMMIT at close time to catch any errors, including
> out-of-space errors the biods haven't reported yet.
>
> Therefore, NFS writes are limited to disk speed, and V2 writes suffer from
> several seeks per write unless assisted by write gathering, NVRAM, and
> related whatnot.
>
> I would not be surprised if most people on this list don't have an 18
> disk array to help spred the load.
>
> BTW, given your hardware, 1963 KB/sec is not terribly exciting. V3 should
> easily see that with a single disk. What do you get from some other V3
> client? Expect that Trond will be pestering you for data ASAP.
>
> -Ric Werme
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Andrew Schretter
Systems Programmer, Duke University
Dept. of Mathematics (919) 660-2866

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/