From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932200AbWAQSdx (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:33:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932324AbWAQSdx (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:33:53 -0500 Received: from [81.2.110.250] ([81.2.110.250]:19333 "EHLO lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932200AbWAQSdv (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 13:33:51 -0500 Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? From: Alan Cox To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Tomasz =?iso-8859-2?Q?K=B3oczko?= , Phil Oester , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apiszcz@lucidpixels.com In-Reply-To: References: <20060117012319.GA22161@linuxace.com> <1137521483.14135.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:33:18 +0000 Message-Id: <1137522798.14135.80.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 (2.2.3-2.fc4) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Maw, 2006-01-17 at 13:24 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Alan, is it normal for FTP to be 2x as fast as NFS? > With 100mbps, I never seemed to have any issues, but with GIGABIT I > definitely see all sorts of weird issues. NFS performance is limited by the fact it is a file system so sees only what the file system can tell it. It also takes a hit because it has strict rules on committing data to disk before acknowledging it (so data is not lost over a crash). That makes NFS a bigger user of CPU resources and more disk dependant than FTP which simply throws the entire file down the pipe when in binary mode, does no processing and makes no guarantee about restarts or what hits disk