On 22/06/2010 09:52, lheck...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> So, this is CentOS 5.0 or 5.1. You should upgrade to at least CentOS 5.2. The
> 5.2 kernel fixes serious performance problems with NFS.
I agree, getting to the latest distro packages is a good idea. There
were some nfs issues in < 5.2
Tim Nelson writes:
> Greetings all-
>
> I have a CentOS 5 (Final) system that is serving up content to several other
> hosts via NFS. The amount of data transferred is rather small as most of the
> files are under 100kb and each export has maybe 100 files that are accessed
> regularly. I'm finding
I meant the number of NFS thread CAN help.
And yes, generally, async gives better performance than "sync"
See if your clients are showing state "D" in top for your nfs client
process. Check for iowait states in iostat.
> What kind of local(on the box themselves) read/write speeds are you
> obser
What kind of local(on the box themselves) read/write speeds are you
observing.
What is the specs on your server: memory, # cpus, cpu speeds, any raid?
What kind of remote access read/write are your observing? Try doing a dd
or something to get a ball park idea.
To first order in NFS performance tu
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 06:08:05PM -0500, Tim Nelson wrote:
> Greetings all-
>
> I have a CentOS 5 (Final) system that is serving up content to
> several other hosts via NFS. The amount of data transferred is rather
> small as most of the files are under 100kb and each export has maybe
> 100 files
Greetings all-
I have a CentOS 5 (Final) system that is serving up content to several other
hosts via NFS. The amount of data transferred is rather small as most of the
files are under 100kb and each export has maybe 100 files that are accessed
regularly. I'm finding that as I add more hosts ac
6 matches
Mail list logo
