All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>
To: <dwight@supercomputer.org>
Cc: <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: RE: Linux client on Solaris 7 NFS server
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:42:17 +0800 (WST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0401061229170.26529-100000@wombat.indigo.net.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200401051731.i05HVaa15457@supercomputer.org>

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 dwight@supercomputer.org wrote:

> Ian Kent wrote:
> > Currently I'm running the RedHat 2.4.20-20.7 kernel.
> >
> > I used UDP transport for a long time but have recently changed to TCP for
> > nearly all my clients.
> > ...
> >
> > My usage is largely read.
> >
> > Performance has improved quite a bit as the kernel version has increased.
> > I can get around 80% (ie. 80% wire speed) the throughput of a 'similar'
> > Sun. Problem is that most of the Sparc clients can saturate 100Mb (onto a
> > gigabit backbone) so I don't really know what the difference is.
> >
> > Ian
>
> Thanks for the information, Ian.
>
> So if I understand you correctly, you are saying that your performance for Linux clients and Solaris clients with a Solaris server is the same? Or that any
> difference is not notiable?

I had some figures, but I've deleted them.

Basically I'm saying, with a 100Mb(it)/sec interface I get just over
8 MB(ytes)/sec whereas I can consistently get over 10MB(ytes)/sec on most
Sparcs (Solaris). So the Sparcs are pushing their interfaces about fast as
they can go but the Linux box is not. So there's still room for
improvement.

>
> Would you happen to know what throughput you are seeing with the Linux
> client? My own, as reported by Ethereal, is about 11 Mbs in this case.
>
> My transactions are a combination of read and write (mimicking the common
> behavior that we use in a production environment). I appreciate the information;
> I'll try a test of pure reads.
>
> And yes, I too have saturated a 100-Mb switch before, though not with NFS.
> The statistics on the switch in the production environment show that we're
> nowhere near saturating the switch. For my test environment, there's almost
> nothing else going on at the time (I.e. one client, one server). While I could
> just use a cross-over cable and eliminate the switch, I don't see any information
> indicating that this would improve things at this time.

Not talking about the switch the clients are connected to but the
interface on the client. I expect the switches can deal with a good deal
more that a single client going fat tack.

Ian






-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IBM Linux Tutorials.
Become an expert in LINUX or just sharpen your skills.  Sign up for IBM's
Free Linux Tutorials.  Learn everything from the bash shell to sys admin.
Click now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1278&alloc_id=3371&op=click
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

  parent reply	other threads:[~2004-01-06  4:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-12-30 15:50 RE: Linux client on Solaris 7 NFS server Lever, Charles
2003-12-30 17:44 ` dwight
2003-12-31  1:55   ` Ian Kent
2004-01-05 17:31     ` dwight
2004-01-05 19:46       ` Wade Hampton
2004-01-05 22:34         ` Wade Hampton
2004-01-06  4:59         ` Ian Kent
2004-01-06  7:41         ` dwight
2004-01-06  4:42       ` Ian Kent [this message]
2004-01-07 18:17         ` dwight
2004-01-08  0:32           ` Ian Kent
2003-12-30 17:58 Lever, Charles
2004-01-05 17:11 ` dwight
2004-01-06  4:57   ` Ian Kent
     [not found] <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>
2004-01-05 18:21 ` Lever, Charles
2004-01-06  7:38   ` dwight

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.33.0401061229170.26529-100000@wombat.indigo.net.au \
    --to=raven@themaw.net \
    --cc=dwight@supercomputer.org \
    --cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.