>
> I have yes solved this issue and I have another test.
^^^ I haven't yet solved this issue
Sorry.
> Now the mount is sync (no async) and the iozone includes
> the -D flag.
> Now the write performance boosts from 3MB/s to 30MB/s.
>
> ---
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~ iozone -D -+q 1 -i 0 -i 1 -r
> Just now got a chance to look at the trace. It looks like FILE_SYNC is
> enabled on the write, which will cause the filer to fully commit the
> block (8k in this case) to disk before replying. This will usually hurt
> performance. I'm not certain where it is getting set, but you might try
On Feb 22, 2008, at 1:58 AM, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:45PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
TCP mounts should be used whenever possible thesedays (I flipped the
default mode in 8.0 the other day).
And I made TCP mounts the default for Amd over a year ag
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:42:45PM +0100, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
> TCP mounts should be used whenever possible thesedays (I flipped the
> default mode in 8.0 the other day).
And I made TCP mounts the default for Amd over a year ago. NFS really
has moved on to TCP these days.
Valerio Daelli wrote:
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Valerio Daelli wrote:
> As you can see they are much faster than NFS.
> Then I have done a test with a Solaris 10 client and a Solaris 10 server:
>
> ---
> SOLARIS
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17:00
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Valerio Daelli wrote:
>
> > As you can see they are much faster than NFS.
> > Then I have done a test with a Solaris 10 client and a Solaris 10 server:
> >
> > ---
> > SOLARIS
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] 17:00:34:~ /u
Valerio Daelli wrote:
As you can see they are much faster than NFS.
Then I have done a test with a Solaris 10 client and a Solaris 10 server:
---
SOLARIS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 17:00:34:~ /usr/local/bin/iozone -r 2m -+q 1 -i 0 -n 2048 -g
8m -Raceb iozone.xls -f
/mnt/nest.ifom-ieo-campus.it/iozone.s
> Can you post it somewhere for me to download and look at? I'm not sure
> my mail server will take a 30MB attachment :)
>
> Eric
>
>
Hi
I have done a test with rsync. These are the results:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/rsync RSYNC_PASSWORD='xxx' time rsync -av
rsync://[EMAIL PROTECTED]/data/FILE
* Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080220 13:42] wrote:
> Chuck Swiger wrote:
> >On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >>>Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are encountering;
> >>>yes, this is expected and things will work but there is extra latency
> >>>added w
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are encountering;
yes, this is expected and things will work but there is extra latency
added when the IP stack has to reassemble packets before the data can
be delivered
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:01 PM, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are
encountering;
yes, this is expected and things will work but there is extra latency
added when the IP stack has to reassemble packets before the data can
be delivered. Try setting the
* Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [080220 10:35] wrote:
> Hi--
>
> On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Valerio Daelli wrote:
> > 99904 total packets received
> [ ... ]
> >
> > 61441 fragments received
>
> [ ... ]
> > 34819 output datagrams fragmented
> > 208914 fragments created
>
> Ta
Hi--
On Feb 20, 2008, at 3:23 AM, Valerio Daelli wrote:
99904 total packets received
[ ... ]
61441 fragments received
[ ... ]
34819 output datagrams fragmented
208914 fragments created
Take a look at the level of packet fragmentation you are encountering;
Claus Guttesen wrote:
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:
nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mnt/n
Valerio Daelli wrote:
On Feb 19, 2008 8:53 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Valerio Daelli wrote:
Hi list
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TC
> > we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
> > It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
> > We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
> > We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
> > This is our mount:
> >
> > nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mn
On Feb 19, 2008 8:53 PM, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Valerio Daelli wrote:
> > Hi list
> >
> > we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
> > It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
> > We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
> > We have tried both UDP and T
Valerio Daelli wrote:
Hi list
we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:
nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.x
18 matches
Mail list logo
