Hi all, here are some ping results outside LAN:
1.62 1.80 1.62 2.33 1.69 1.64 1.75 2.35 5.77 3.85 4.69 2.73 ... The internet speed is the same 100/5. I just moved ~20M/~2000 files AFS to SSH server ~220KB/s SSH server to AFS ~80KB/s The client was in WAN this time, whereas both servers where in the same LAN (not sure it they knew it :). br, jukka > The lacks large window sizes is unlikely the issue in this case. The use > case is reading large numbers of small files which require a separate RPC > for each object. An 8MB window size won't help when the file sizes are > small and the number of files is large. The RPC latency * number of RPCs > is what matters. > > Jeffrey Altman > > > On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:28 AM, Simon Wilkinson <simonxwilkin...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> On 22 Mar 2012, at 15:23, Andrew Deason wrote: >> >>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:20:20 +0000 >>> Simon Wilkinson <simonxwilkin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> That limit is imposed because it is the point at which the current RX >>>> implementation loses the queue efficiency/throughput tradeoff. You can >>>> run with a larger window size, but it will actually make things go >>>> slower. >>>> >>>> It was naively increasing the maximum window size to 255 that caused >>>> the huge performance problems in the 1.5.x series that Andrei >>>> highlighted at the 2010 European AFS workshop. >>> >>> Yes, I know, that's what I'm talking about. Even if we didn't have that >>> problem, a window size of 255 is still prohibitively small for many >>> uses. >> >> Yeah, that's a bigger problem. We can't extend the window beyond 255, >> because that's the maximum size of the RX ACK packet. >> >> Large windows only help up to a point, though. We go back in to slow >> start with every new call, (this is similar to TCP, which re-enters slow >> start if RTT has passed since the last packet was sent). So, you will >> only use the full window for Store or Read Data if you are writing >> enough data in single call that you can grow the window quickly enough. >> >> Ultimately, we either need rx/tcp, or a bigger revamp of rx/udp than >> anyone is currently considering. >> >> S. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenAFS-info mailing list >> OpenAFS-info@openafs.org >> https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > _______________________________________________ > OpenAFS-info mailing list > OpenAFS-info@openafs.org > https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
