Actually as i didn't have any other *nix client i local mounted the nfs share on the server and performance a just a little bit better than from OSX client... So my guess is that the problem doesn't come from the OSX client as i thought first. DO you have a link to that DTrace toolkit?
All i checked with iostat and nfsstat doesn't show anything relevant Nothing strange except that: Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:24 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsd[879]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:33 local at dismiss nfs4cbd[893]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:43 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/nfsmapid[901]: [ID 876094 daemon.debug] nfsmapid domain = internal Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 739773 daemon.debug] Current SO_SNDBUF value is 49152 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 978932 daemon.debug] Set SO_SNDBUF option to 1048576 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 866344 daemon.debug] Current SO_RCVBUF value is 128000 Jan 29 09:19:58 local at dismiss /usr/lib/nfs/lockd[906]: [ID 115109 daemon.debug] Set SO_RCVBUF option to 1048576 Not really sure if i have to hack this right now or investigate further before changing them. Regards, Olivier On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:41 PM, a b <tripivceta at hotmail.com> wrote: > No way am I going to tell you that, 2MB/s is busted, no ifs, buts, or > maybes. > > Do you have any other clients which connect to the NFS server? What does > their > performance look like? > Can you pinpoint the performance problem to OS X NFS client? > > Is it possible to connect the client and the server directly via a CAT5 > crossover cable, > to rule the network equipment out? > > Have you tried DTracing the NFS server? I'd take Brendan Gregg's DTrace > toolkit and go > to town on the NFS server, unless you can actually prove that there is a > problem with > the OS X NFS client <---> SunOS NFS server. > > Is there anything in /var/adm/messages on the NFS server, NFS related, RPC > related, > possibly NIC related? > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:31:21 +0100 > > Subject: Re: [ug-chosug] [NFS] Zfs sharenfs bad performance > From: oliver.mauras at gmail.com > To: tripivceta at hotmail.com > CC: ug-chosug at opensolaris.org > > God i should stop sending mail from the smartphone... Sorry bad replies. > > So to reframe the questions, how many MB/s do i expect: Around 35MB/s or > more ... This is the least i have on similar setups.. > How many do i have now: Around 2MB/s .... > > Please don't tell me this is normal "not lying" performance. > > > Regards, > > Olivier > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Mauras Olivier <oliver.mauras at > gmail.com>wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM, a b <tripivceta at hotmail.com> wrote: > > You are reporting 48MB/s over SMB, and that's with "lying", and I'm seeing > 12MB/s I/Os making it to the disk on my ZFS NFS server, and that's with a > much older system and "no lying", so it seems to me that both observations > correspond to expected behavior/performance. > > I guess you could reframe the question: how many MB/s do you expect from > ZFS + NFS? 48, like for CIFS/SMB? How many MB/s are you getting now? > > ------------------------------ > Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:06:42 +0100 > Subject: Re: [ug-chosug] [NFS] Zfs sharenfs bad performance > > From: oliver.mauras at gmail.com > To: tripivceta at hotmail.com > CC: ug-chosug at opensolaris.org > > > Sorry bad reply... > So how could waiting I/Os to commit on a drive array capable of 180MB write > on gigabit network could drop performances that bad??? That's just wrong... > i never had that kind of bad performances even with the worst pata drive > over 100mb network.... > > > > > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it > now.<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969> > > _______________________________________________ > Switzerland OpenSolaris Mailing List > > ug-chosug at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ug-chosug > wiki: http://wikis.sun.com/display/chosug > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=161188&trk=hb_side_g > ISO images: > http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/opensolaris.org/release_isos/ > IPS: http://ips.osug.ch:10000/release/ > Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31224908 at N08 > > > > > ------------------------------ > Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it > now.<https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969> > > _______________________________________________ > Switzerland OpenSolaris Mailing List > ug-chosug at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ug-chosug > wiki: http://wikis.sun.com/display/chosug > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=161188&trk=hb_side_g > ISO images: > http://mirror.switch.ch/ftp/mirror/opensolaris.org/release_isos/ > IPS: http://ips.osug.ch:10000/release/ > Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/31224908 at N08 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/ug-chosug/attachments/20100129/47670592/attachment-0001.html>
