On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 12:46:27PM -0700, Michael Smith wrote: > Hello Jason: > > On Jun 23, 2007, at 9:34 AM, Jason Morgan wrote: > > >I've been having some trouble with NFS performance for some time and > >now that class is out, I've had a bit of time to investigate but I'm > >stuck. Below are the details of my investigation. Hopefully, someone > >here can give me some advice. > > > >The basic problem is that my NFS performance is very slow. Right now, > >I am connecting two workstations to a NFS server, which has my home > >directory, etc, mounted. They are connected over a gigabit network > >(right now with mtu set to 7000, which is supported by all hardware -- > >changing it to 1500 has no effect on performance, which is > >strange). Each system is running 6.2-RELEASE or -STABLE. Each system > >is also using the following network card: > > > ># ifconfig sk0 > >sk0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 7000 > > options=b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU> > > inet 10.0.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255 > > ether 00:17:9a:bb:05:87 > > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseTX <full- > >duplex,flag0,flag1>) > > status: active > > > ># dmesg | grep sk > >skc0: <D-Link DGE-530T Gigabit Ethernet> port 0xec00-0xecff mem > > 0xfdff8000-0xfdffbfff irq 18 at device 10.0 on pci0 > >skc0: DGE-530T Gigabit Ethernet Adapter rev. (0x9) > >sk0: <Marvell Semiconductor, Inc. Yukon> on skc0 > >sk0: Ethernet address: 00:17:9a:XX:XX:XX > > > >## Server /etc/rc.conf settings > > > >rpcbind_enable="YES" > >rpc_lockd_enable="YES" > >rpc_statd_enable="YES" > >nfs_server_enable="YES" > >nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 12" > >nfs_bufpackets="32" > >mountd_flags="-r" > > > > > >## Client /etc/rc.conf settings > > > >nfs_client_enable="YES" > >nfs_bufpackets="32" > >nfsiod_enable="YES" > >nfsiod_flags="-n 6" > >rpc_lockd_enable="YES" > >rpc_statd_enable="YES" > >rpcbind_enable="YES" > > > >## /etc/exports > > > >/usr -alldirs,maproot=root client1 client2 > > > > > >For performance benchmarking, I am using dd. Locally from the server, > >this is a representative result when writing a 1GB file: > > > >## Local write test (for an upper-bound on what to expect). > > > ># dd if=/dev/zero of=./nfs.dat bs=1024k count=1000 > >1000+0 records in > >1000+0 records out > >1048576000 bytes transferred in 19.580184 secs (53552919 bytes/sec) > > > >Connecting from a client (both clients get approximately the same > >results). > > > >## Remote connection (UDP), mounted in /etc/fstab as with flags: > >## rw,-U,-3,-r=32768,-w=32768 > > > ># dd if=/dev/zero of=./nfs.dat bs=1024k count=1000 > >1000+0 records in > >1000+0 records out > >1048576000 bytes transferred in 101.151139 secs (10366428 bytes/sec) > > > >## Remote connection (TCP), mounted in /etc/fstab as with flags: > >## rw,-T,-3,-r=32768,-w=32768 > > > ># dd if=/dev/zero of=./nfs.dat bs=1024k count=1000 > >1000+0 records in > >1000+0 records out > >1048576000 bytes transferred in 59.668585 secs (17573334 bytes/sec) > > > >As can be seen above, TCP is much faster than UPD. I have tried many > >different mount settings and these are the best results I could > >get. To test whether or not I have having network issues, I > >transferred the same nfs.dat file via a http connection and got > >~32MB/sec -- almost 2x the speed of the TCP NFS connection. 32MB/sec > >is about what I would expect given that my fastest write speed is > >~50MB/sec. > > > >At this point I am stumped. I have tried increasing/changing the > >number of nfsiod servers as well as nfs_bufpackets. No matter what > >settings I change, the results are always the same. I get only two > >errors, first on /var/log/messages on the server I have just begun > >seeing: > > > >Jun 22 21:13:47 crichton routed[666]: sendto(dc1, 224.0.0.2): > >Operation not permitted > >Jun 22 21:13:47 crichton routed[666]: sendto(sk0, 224.0.0.2): > >Operation not permitted > >Jun 22 21:13:50 crichton routed[666]: sendto(dc1, 224.0.0.2): > >Operation not permitted > >Jun 22 21:13:50 crichton routed[666]: sendto(sk0, 224.0.0.2): > >Operation not permitted > > > >This appeared after I added a route; however, I added the route after > >many of the tests were done. I get the same results now as before the > >new route. On one of the clients (the one running 6.2-RELEASE-p1), I > >also get a nasty error: > > > >nfs/tcp clnt: Error 60 reading socket, tearing down TCP connection > > > >This cropped up last night after I tweaked some settings. They have > >now been changed back, but I still get this error. The other client is > >unaffected. > > > >I appreciate any help people can provide on tracking down the > >issues. Sorry about the long email -- just trying to be thorough. Of > >course, I've searched the Internet and can't find any clear assistence > >on these issues. > > > >Cheers, > >~Jason > > > We use the following settings on a mail cluster that's pushing about > 50 MB/sec sustained. > > 10.211.1.213:/m0 /mail/m0 nfs > rw,tcp,intr,noatime,nfsv3,-w=65536,-r=65536 > > # NFS Server > rpcbind_enable="YES" > rpc_lockd_enable="YES" > rpc_statd_enable="YES" > nfs_server_enable="YES" > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 16 -h 10.211.1.213" > mountd_flags="-r" > > I would imagine the larger read/write values above would be fine for > you as well, given you have Gigabit links. The 'noatime' setting may > be problematic depending on your application. You might want to > Google specifics on what applications use atime to see if that's a > good flag for you or not. > > I'd love to see your results if you decide to test those settings > offline. > > Regards, > > Mike
Mike, thank you for the advice. I followed it, but didn't make much progress. I am still pushing the same ~17M/sec. I did mess with net.inet.tcp.sendspace and net.inet.tcp.recvspace some and managed to get a couple more MB/sec out of the connection, but not much else. It's quite possible I am missing something obvious. Thanks again, ~Jason _______________________________________________ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
