Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Harti Brandt wrote: HBOn Thu, 7 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: HB HBMWLIn message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] HBMWLHarti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: HBMWL: MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients HBMWL: MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative HBMWL: MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking HBMWL: MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file HBMWL: MWLsystem flags? HBMWL: HBMWL: I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance HBMWL: is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast HBMWL: enough. HBMWL HBMWLWe see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but HBMWLwhen we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours HBMWLover NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to HBMWLtry to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be HBMWLeven slower. HB HBOk. I did a very short test (no time to do much more). Read performance HBwith dd if=/nfs/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k is around 9MByte/sec. Write HBperformance with dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfs/bigfile bs=4k is 4MByte/sec. HB HBClient is something around 1GHz with a 100Mbps link. Fileserver is a HBdouble proc Xeon with a 1Gbps link. The Server has a load of around 30% HB(from the antivirus scanner). HB HB72Mbps on a 100Mbps link looks actually ok for me. I've no FreeBSD on a HBGigabit link to test with. HB HBIf you want I could try to do a buildworld. Ok. To answer my own mail. A buildworld with a local /usr/src takes 2:50h on that machine, with /usr/src on the W2003 server 3:50h. Looks not that bad. harti ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Harti Brandt wrote: : : HBOn Thu, 7 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: : HB : HBMWLIn message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : HBMWLHarti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : HBMWL: MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients : HBMWL: MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative : HBMWL: MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking : HBMWL: MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file : HBMWL: MWLsystem flags? : HBMWL: : HBMWL: I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance : HBMWL: is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast : HBMWL: enough. : HBMWL : HBMWLWe see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but : HBMWLwhen we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours : HBMWLover NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to : HBMWLtry to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be : HBMWLeven slower. : HB : HBOk. I did a very short test (no time to do much more). Read performance : HBwith dd if=/nfs/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k is around 9MByte/sec. Write : HBperformance with dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfs/bigfile bs=4k is 4MByte/sec. : HB : HBClient is something around 1GHz with a 100Mbps link. Fileserver is a : HBdouble proc Xeon with a 1Gbps link. The Server has a load of around 30% : HB(from the antivirus scanner). : HB : HB72Mbps on a 100Mbps link looks actually ok for me. I've no FreeBSD on a : HBGigabit link to test with. : HB : HBIf you want I could try to do a buildworld. : : Ok. To answer my own mail. A buildworld with a local /usr/src takes 2:50h : on that machine, with /usr/src on the W2003 server 3:50h. Looks not that bad. So we're talking 33% slower here rather than 90% slower that I see for my entire product build. So the speed is similar to what I've seen over NFS here... Warner ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
On Fri, 8 Dec 2006, Harti Brandt wrote: On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, Harti Brandt wrote: HBOk. I did a very short test (no time to do much more). Read performance HBwith dd if=/nfs/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k is around 9MByte/sec. Write HBperformance with dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfs/bigfile bs=4k is 4MByte/sec. HB HBClient is something around 1GHz with a 100Mbps link. Fileserver is a HBdouble proc Xeon with a 1Gbps link. The Server has a load of around 30% HB(from the antivirus scanner). HB HB72Mbps on a 100Mbps link looks actually ok for me. I've no FreeBSD on a HBGigabit link to test with. HB HBIf you want I could try to do a buildworld. Ok. To answer my own mail. A buildworld with a local /usr/src takes 2:50h on that machine, with /usr/src on the W2003 server 3:50h. Looks not that bad. Hmm, with such slow machines, network/nfs latency shouldn't be much of a problem. Makeworld of a ~5.2 world with a Turion X2 2GHz takes 14:24m here. About 1m of this time is extra for nfs. It took a bit of work to reduce the nfs overhead from a few minutes (about 5?) to only 1. Bruce ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
Hi Warner, On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file MWLsystem flags? I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast enough. The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I suppose it is a problem on the SFU side. Locking seems to work. Problems are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal. Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup, copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors. Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is with symbolic links. The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions that I know of. harti ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : : Hi Warner, : : On Wed, 6 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients : MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative : MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking : MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file : MWLsystem flags? : : I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance : is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast : enough. : : The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file : server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when : saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I : suppose it is a problem on the SFU side. Locking seems to work. Problems : are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source : tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing : ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal. This is excellent information. So building a ports tree would be, ummm, problematic. : Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup, : copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and : makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like : ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors. That's good information. : Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools : and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is : with symbolic links. Also good information. : The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions : that I know of. This is the one I knew about! The others are far more important :-) Warner ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Harti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients : MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative : MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking : MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file : MWLsystem flags? : : I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance : is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast : enough. We see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but when we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours over NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to try to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be even slower. : The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file : server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when : saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I : suppose it is a problem on the SFU side. So building large binaries might be a problem? : Locking seems to work. Does seems to work mean it really does work, or does SFU just do the old trick of saying 'ok, your lock worked'? : Problems : are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source : tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing : ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal. That would be a problem for hosting a ports tree on the NTFS nfs partition, no? : Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup, : copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and : makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like : ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors. That's ugly. : Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools : and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is : with symbolic links. Symblic links point elsewhere? or have different destinations? Does it matter absolute or relative? : The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions : that I know of. Same problem with FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS. Warner ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: MWLIn message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] MWLHarti Brandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: MWL: MWLDoes anybody have experience with using FreeBSD 4.x or 6.x NFS clients MWL: MWLagainst a Windows 2003 NFS server? What is the performance relative MWL: MWLto using a FreeBSD NFS server? What is the stability? Does locking MWL: MWLwork? Does the Windows 2003 server have extensions that grok file MWL: MWLsystem flags? MWL: MWL: I use this regularily (well, -CURRENT). I have no numbers, but performance MWL: is ok. I have the home directories on a W2003k server and it 'feels' fast MWL: enough. MWL MWLWe see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but MWLwhen we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours MWLover NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. We're worried that if we were to MWLtry to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be MWLeven slower. Ok. I did a very short test (no time to do much more). Read performance with dd if=/nfs/bigfile of=/dev/null bs=4k is around 9MByte/sec. Write performance with dd if=/dev/zero of=/nfs/bigfile bs=4k is 4MByte/sec. Client is something around 1GHz with a 100Mbps link. Fileserver is a double proc Xeon with a 1Gbps link. The Server has a load of around 30% (from the antivirus scanner). 72Mbps on a 100Mbps link looks actually ok for me. I've no FreeBSD on a Gigabit link to test with. If you want I could try to do a buildworld. MWL: The only problem I see is a lot of 'file server not reponding' and 'file MWL: server up again' (with 2-3 seconds in between). This is usually when MWL: saving a large mail from pine. Linux clients see the same problem, so I MWL: suppose it is a problem on the SFU side. MWL MWLSo building large binaries might be a problem? Hmm. I just discovered, that these messages are gone since approx. two weeks. No idea why! MWL MWL: Locking seems to work. MWL MWLDoes seems to work mean it really does work, or does SFU just do the MWLold trick of saying 'ok, your lock worked'? I just did the following test: tty0 # lockf /nfs/foo sleep 100 tty1 # lockf /nfs/foo sh -c 'while true ; do echo -n '.' ; sleep 1 ; done' When I interrupt the lockf on tty0 with ^C, the process on tty1 starts to print dots. So I suppose it actually works. MWL MWL: Problems MWL: are with filenames that are illegal for NTFS - hosting a 2.11BSD source MWL: tree on a W2003 NFS share does not work because of filenames containing MWL: ':' :-). I've not tested what other characters are illegal. MWL MWLThat would be a problem for hosting a ports tree on the NTFS nfs MWLpartition, no? I suppose so. Interestinly enough the SFU documentation says, that these file names are actually allowed, so this seems like a bug. MWL: Another problem is that on the NTFS side there is no good way to backup, MWL: copy, whatever the trees, because while NTFS handles Makefile and MWL: makefile, no Windows tool can access both of them. Even worse thinks like MWL: ADSM backup sometimes die with internal errors. MWL MWLThat's ugly. Yes. While NTFS can handle lower/uppercase, the access layer between NTFS and applications make 'a'=='A'. My plan here is to mount the NFS share on a UNIX host and make the backups from there. MWL: Mapping of UIDs and GIDs is rather magic. The FreeBSD side, the SFU tools MWL: and cygwin all see different numbers which is rather annoying. The same is MWL: with symbolic links. MWL MWLSymblic links point elsewhere? or have different destinations? Does MWLit matter absolute or relative? NTFS has no symbolic links, so they are implemented above in the application layer (SFU or the cygwin libraries). Obviously everybody implements them differently. So if you create a symbolic link on the NFS share. Then cygwin on the server just sees a short data file. MWL: The file flags are not supported by the server. There are no extensions MWL: that I know of. MWL MWLSame problem with FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS. harti ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: FreeBSD NFS Client, Windows 2003 NFS server
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, M. Warner Losh wrote: We see FreeBSD to FreeBSD NFS feeling fast enough for most things, but when we do a full build of our system from scratch it takes 10 hours over NFS vs 1 hour on a local disk. I have a report that lost dotdot caching seems to be responsible for most of the enormous slowness of nfs under FreeBSD (for building a large non-FreeBSD system), but I think this is only one of several slowness factors, and building things in parallel is an adequate workaround in all cases that I tried (mainly building kernels and worlds). We're worried that if we were to try to do heavy NFS traffic to a Win2003 server with SFU this would be even slower. The slowness in FreeBSD's nfs seems to be mostly in the client (except network latency is in the network). The client doesn't cache things very well, so it generates a large number of RPCs so the total latency = (per-RPC-latency * number-of-RPCs) is enormous if the per-RPC latency is just large. Bruce ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
