But this is concerning reads not writes. -Ross
On Oct 20, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Trevor Pretty <trevor_pretty at eagle.co.nz> wrote: > Gary > > Where you measuring the Linux NFS write performance? It's well know > that Linux can use NFS in a very "unsafe" mode and report the write > complete when it is not all the way to safe storage. This is often > reported as Solaris has slow NFS write performance. This link does > not mention NFS v4 but you might want to check. http://nfs.sourceforge.net/ > > What's the write performance like between the two OpenSolaris systems? > > > Richard Elling wrote: >> >> cross-posting to nfs-discuss >> >> On Oct 20, 2009, at 10:35 AM, Gary Gogick wrote: >> >> >>> Heya all, >>> >>> I'm working on testing ZFS with NFS, and I could use some guidance - >>> read speeds are a bit less than I expected. >>> >>> Over a gig-e line, we're seeing ~30 MB/s reads on average - doesn't >>> seem to matter if we're doing large numbers of small files or small >>> numbers of large files, the speed seems to top out there. We've >>> disabled pre-fetching, which may be having some affect on read >>> speads, but proved necessary due to severe performance issues on >>> database reads with it enabled. (Reading from the DB with pre- >>> fetching enabled was taking 4-5 times as long than with it >>> disabled.) >>> >> >> What is the performance when reading locally (eliminate NFS from the >> equation)? >> -- richard >> >> >>> Write speed seems to be fine. Testing is showing ~95 MB/s, which >>> seems pretty decent considering there's been no real network tuning >>> done. >>> >>> The NFS server we're testing is a Sun x4500, configured with a >>> storage pool consisting of 20x 2-disk mirrors, using separate SSD >>> for logging. It's running the latest version of Nexenta Core. >>> (We've also got a second x4500 in with a raidZ2 config, running >>> OpenSolaris proper, showing the same issues with reads.) >>> >>> We're using NFS v4 via TCP, serving various Linux clients (the >>> majority are CentOS 5.3). Connectivity is presently provided by a >>> single gigabit ethernet link; entirely conventional configuration >>> (no jumbo frames/etc). >>> >>> Our workload is pretty read heavy; we're serving both website assets >>> and databases via NFS. The majority of files being served are small >>> (< 1MB). The databases are MySQL/InnoDB, with the data in separate >>> zfs filesystems with a record size of 16k. The website assets/etc. >>> are in zfs filesystems with the default record size. On the >>> database server side of things, we've disabled InnoDB's double write >>> buffer. >>> >>> I'm wondering if there's any other tuning that'd be a good idea for >>> ZFS in this situation, or if there's some NFS tuning that should be >>> done when dealing specifically with ZFS. Any advice would be >>> greatly appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Gary Gogick >>> senior systems administrator | workhabit,inc. >>> >>> // email: gary at workhabit.com | web: http://www.workhabit.com >>> // office: 866-workhabit | fax: 919-552-9690 >>> >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> --- >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> zfs-discuss mailing list >>> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > www.eagle.co.nz > This email is confidential and may be legally privileged. If > received in error please destroy and immediately notify us. > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
