On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 6:56:27 pm Daryl Sayers wrote: > >>>>> "John" == John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> writes: > > > On Monday, November 28, 2011 7:12:39 pm Daryl Sayers wrote: > >> >>>>> "Bengt" == Bengt Ahlgren <ben...@sics.se> writes: > >> > >> > Daryl Sayers <da...@ci.com.au> writes: > >> >> Can anyone suggest why I am getting poor write performance from my nfs > >> >> setup. > >> >> I have 2 x FreeBSD 8.2-STABLE i386 machines with ASUS P5B-plus mother > >> >> boards, > >> >> 4G mem and Dual core 3g processor using 147G 15k Seagate SAS drives with > >> >> onboard Gb network cards connected to an idle network. The results > >> >> below show > >> >> that I get nearly 100Mb/s with a dd over rsh but only 15Mbs using nfs. > >> >> It > >> >> improves if I use async but a smbfs mount still beats it. I am using > >> >> the same > >> >> file, source and destinations for all tests. I have tried alternate > >> >> Network > >> >> cards with no resulting benefit. > >> > >> > [...] > >> > >> >> Looking at a systat -v on the destination I see that the nfs test does > >> >> not > >> >> exceed 16KB/t with 100% busy where the other tests reach up to 128KB/t. > >> >> For the record I get reads of 22Mb/s without and 77Mb/s with async > >> >> turned on > >> >> for the nfs mount. > >> > >> > On an UFS filesystem you get NFS writes with the same size as the > >> > filesystem blocksize. So an easy way to improve performance is to > >> > create a filesystem with larger blocks. I accidentally found this out > >> > when I had two NFS exported filesystems from the same box with 16K and > >> > 64K blocksizes respectively. > >> > >> > (Larger blocksize also tremendously improves the performance of UFS > >> > snapshots!) > >> > >> Thanks to all that answered. I did try the 'sysctl -w vfs.nfsrv.async=1' > >> with > >> no reportable change in performance. We are using a UFS2 filesystem so the > >> zfs command was not required. I did not try the patch as we would like to > >> stay > >> as standard as possible but will upgrade if the patch is released in new > >> kernel. > > > If you can test the patch then it is something I will likely put into the > > next release. I have already tested it as far as robustness locally, what > > I don't have are good performance tests. It would really be helpful if you > > were able to test it. > > >> Thanks Bengt for the suggestion of block size. Increasing the block size to > >> 64k made a significant improvement to performance. > > > In theory the patch might have given you similar gains. During my simple > > tests > > I was able to raise the average I/O size in iostat to 70 to 80k from 16k. > > OK, I downloaded and install the patch and did some basic testing and I can > reveal that the patch does improve performance. I can also see that my KB/t > now exceed the 16KB/t that seemed to be a limiting factor prior.
Ok, thanks. Does it give similar performance results to using 64k block size? -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"