* Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? @ 2006-01-17 1:07 Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 1:23 ` Phil Oester 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-kernel; +Cc: apiszcz Now that I have 74GB raptors in both of my Linux boxes, I thought I would compare throughput between FTP and NFS over a gigabit network. I am using the same kernel versions and same motherboard on both machines and even the same raptor hdd model. Here are my results: NFS, COPY 700MB FILE FROM 1 RAPTOR TO ANOTHER RAPTOR VIA GIGABIT ETHERNET: $ cp file /remote/dst 0.02user 1.86system 0:38.07elapsed 4%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps FTP, SAME lftp> put file 733045488 bytes transferred in 10 seconds (67.38M/s) What is wrong with NFS? NFS options used: rw,bg,hard,intr,nfsvers=3 Is it doing some kind of weird caching? I am using NFSv3 & XFS as the filesystem, any ideas? I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? Thanks! Justin. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 1:07 Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 1:23 ` Phil Oester 2006-01-17 1:32 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 9:50 ` Justin Piszcz 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Phil Oester @ 2006-01-17 1:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz; +Cc: linux-kernel, apiszcz On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:07:02PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? Precisely. Phil ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 1:23 ` Phil Oester @ 2006-01-17 1:32 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 17:48 ` Tomasz Kłoczko 2006-01-17 9:50 ` Justin Piszcz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 1:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Oester; +Cc: linux-kernel, apiszcz Also, some people mentioned tuning, I used 8192 as the w/r size it then took 15 seconds, with 65535 it took 28 seconds. I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is the problem itself? Will try later thanks. FTP seems to be the winner for now: <--- 226 8.927 seconds (measured here), 78.31 Mbytes per second 733045488 bytes transferred in 9 seconds (77.08M/s) On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Phil Oester wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:07:02PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? > > Precisely. > > Phil > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 1:32 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 17:48 ` Tomasz Kłoczko 2006-01-17 18:11 ` Alan Cox 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Tomasz Kłoczko @ 2006-01-17 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz; +Cc: Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 590 bytes --] On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Also, some people mentioned tuning, I used 8192 as the w/r size it then took > 15 seconds, with 65535 it took 28 seconds. > > I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is > the problem itself? On Linux NFS over TCP is slower than over UDP ~10%. kloczek -- ----------------------------------------------------------- *Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają* ----------------------------------------------------------- Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: kloczek@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl* ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 17:48 ` Tomasz Kłoczko @ 2006-01-17 18:11 ` Alan Cox 2006-01-17 18:24 ` Justin Piszcz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2006-01-17 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tomasz Kłoczko; +Cc: Justin Piszcz, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Maw, 2006-01-17 at 18:48 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is > > the problem itself? > > On Linux NFS over TCP is slower than over UDP ~10%. For the specific case you measured. Its never quite that simple because behaviour over different networks and error patterns varies a lot and TCP can be a big win on loaded networks or under error conditions, especially packet loss, where fragmentation losses kill throughput on UDP. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:11 ` Alan Cox @ 2006-01-17 18:24 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 18:33 ` Alan Cox 2006-01-17 18:37 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Alan Cox; +Cc: Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 742 bytes --] 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. On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Alan Cox wrote: > On Maw, 2006-01-17 at 18:48 +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: >>> I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is >>> the problem itself? >> >> On Linux NFS over TCP is slower than over UDP ~10%. > > For the specific case you measured. Its never quite that simple because > behaviour over different networks and error patterns varies a lot and > TCP can be a big win on loaded networks or under error conditions, > especially packet loss, where fragmentation losses kill throughput on > UDP. > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:24 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 18:33 ` Alan Cox 2006-01-17 18:37 ` Trond Myklebust 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Alan Cox @ 2006-01-17 18:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz; +Cc: Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:24 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 18:33 ` Alan Cox @ 2006-01-17 18:37 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 18:38 ` Justin Piszcz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 18:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 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. Reading or writing? The readahead algorithm has been borken in 2.6.x for at least the past 6 months. It leads to NFS collapsing down to 4k reads on the wire instead of doing 32k or 64k. An effort was made to look at fixing this, but it turns out that nobody really understands the current messy implementation, and so progress has been slow. Cheers, Trond ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:37 ` Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 18:38 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 18:53 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 18:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz Writing from SRC(A) -> DST(B). I have not tested reading, but as I recall there were similar speed issues going the other way too, although I have not tested it recently. Justin. On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 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. > > Reading or writing? > > The readahead algorithm has been borken in 2.6.x for at least the past 6 > months. It leads to NFS collapsing down to 4k reads on the wire instead > of doing 32k or 64k. > An effort was made to look at fixing this, but it turns out that nobody > really understands the current messy implementation, and so progress has > been slow. > > Cheers, > Trond > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:38 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 18:53 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 18:55 ` Justin Piszcz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 18:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:38 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Writing from SRC(A) -> DST(B). > I have not tested reading, but as I recall there were similar speed issues > going the other way too, although I have not tested it recently. How were you testing it? I'm not sure that ftp will actually sync your file to disk (whereas that is pretty much mandatory for an NFS server), so unless you are transferring very large files, you would expect to see a speed difference due to caching of writes by the server. Cheers, Trond ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:53 ` Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 18:55 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 19:01 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz Did you get my other e-mail? $ cp file /nfs/destination $ lftp> put file On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:38 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> Writing from SRC(A) -> DST(B). >> I have not tested reading, but as I recall there were similar speed issues >> going the other way too, although I have not tested it recently. > > How were you testing it? I'm not sure that ftp will actually sync your > file to disk (whereas that is pretty much mandatory for an NFS server), > so unless you are transferring very large files, you would expect to see > a speed difference due to caching of writes by the server. > > Cheers, > Trond > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 18:55 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 19:01 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 19:03 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 20:39 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 2 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:55 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > Did you get my other e-mail? > > $ cp file /nfs/destination > $ lftp> put file Yes, but how big a file is this? Is it significantly larger than the amount of cache memory on the server? As I said, if ftp is failing to sync the file to disk, then you may be comparing apples and oranges. Cheers, Trond > On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:38 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > >> Writing from SRC(A) -> DST(B). > >> I have not tested reading, but as I recall there were similar speed issues > >> going the other way too, although I have not tested it recently. > > > > How were you testing it? I'm not sure that ftp will actually sync your > > file to disk (whereas that is pretty much mandatory for an NFS server), > > so unless you are transferring very large files, you would expect to see > > a speed difference due to caching of writes by the server. > > > > Cheers, > > Trond > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 19:01 ` Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-17 19:03 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 20:39 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz The file is 700MB. Machine A (src) has 2GB of RAM / 2GB of swap Machine B (dst) has 1GB of RAM / 2GB of swap. Justin. On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:55 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> Did you get my other e-mail? >> >> $ cp file /nfs/destination >> $ lftp> put file > > > Yes, but how big a file is this? Is it significantly larger than the > amount of cache memory on the server? As I said, if ftp is failing to > sync the file to disk, then you may be comparing apples and oranges. > > Cheers, > Trond > >> On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Trond Myklebust wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 13:38 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >>>> Writing from SRC(A) -> DST(B). >>>> I have not tested reading, but as I recall there were similar speed issues >>>> going the other way too, although I have not tested it recently. >>> >>> How were you testing it? I'm not sure that ftp will actually sync your >>> file to disk (whereas that is pretty much mandatory for an NFS server), >>> so unless you are transferring very large files, you would expect to see >>> a speed difference due to caching of writes by the server. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Trond >>> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 19:01 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 19:03 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 20:39 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-17 20:45 ` Justin Piszcz 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-17 20:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trond Myklebust Cc: Justin Piszcz, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz >> Did you get my other e-mail? >> >> $ cp file /nfs/destination >> $ lftp> put file > > >Yes, but how big a file is this? Is it significantly larger than the >amount of cache memory on the server? As I said, if ftp is failing to >sync the file to disk, then you may be comparing apples and oranges. Ok, so what happens if you use NFS with the async option, does it go a little faster? Jan Engelhardt -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 20:39 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-17 20:45 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 22:07 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 20:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Trond Myklebust, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz auto Can be mounted with the -a option. defaults Use default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, nouser, and async. The default is async, no? On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> Did you get my other e-mail? >>> >>> $ cp file /nfs/destination >>> $ lftp> put file >> >> >> Yes, but how big a file is this? Is it significantly larger than the >> amount of cache memory on the server? As I said, if ftp is failing to >> sync the file to disk, then you may be comparing apples and oranges. > > > Ok, so what happens if you use NFS with the async option, does it go a > little faster? > > > > Jan Engelhardt > -- > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 20:45 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 22:07 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-17 22:13 ` Lee Revell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-17 22:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Trond Myklebust, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz > auto Can be mounted with the -a option. > > defaults > Use default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, > nouser, and async. > > The default is async, no? The server side also needs to specify async in exports. You even get a warning if you do not specify sync or async, because the default had been changed once. Jan Engelhardt -- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 22:07 ` Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-17 22:13 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-17 23:19 ` Justin Piszcz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Lee Revell @ 2006-01-17 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jan Engelhardt Cc: Justin Piszcz, Trond Myklebust, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 23:07 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > auto Can be mounted with the -a option. > > > > defaults > > Use default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, > > nouser, and async. > > > > The default is async, no? > > The server side also needs to specify async in exports. You even get a > warning if you do not specify sync or async, because the default had > been changed once. > What is the date on the above man page? Looks like the docs need to be updated. I believe the default was originally async, which violates the NFS spec and is dangerous, and changed to sync at some point. Lee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 22:13 ` Lee Revell @ 2006-01-17 23:19 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 23:39 ` Lee Revell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 23:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lee Revell Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Trond Myklebust, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz man mount On Tue, 17 Jan 2006, Lee Revell wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 23:07 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote: >>> auto Can be mounted with the -a option. >>> >>> defaults >>> Use default options: rw, suid, dev, exec, auto, >>> nouser, and async. >>> >>> The default is async, no? >> >> The server side also needs to specify async in exports. You even get a >> warning if you do not specify sync or async, because the default had >> been changed once. >> > > What is the date on the above man page? Looks like the docs need to be > updated. > > I believe the default was originally async, which violates the NFS spec > and is dangerous, and changed to sync at some point. > > Lee > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 23:19 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 23:39 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-18 0:43 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Lee Revell @ 2006-01-17 23:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz Cc: Jan Engelhardt, Trond Myklebust, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:19 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > man mount > async is the default for most filesystems but the NFS standard requires writes to be synchronous. Lee ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 23:39 ` Lee Revell @ 2006-01-18 0:43 ` Trond Myklebust 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Trond Myklebust @ 2006-01-18 0:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Lee Revell Cc: Justin Piszcz, Jan Engelhardt, Alan Cox, Tomasz Kłoczko, Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:39 -0500, Lee Revell wrote: > On Tue, 2006-01-17 at 18:19 -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: > > man mount > > > > async is the default for most filesystems but the NFS standard requires > writes to be synchronous. On the server side, note. Not the client side. Justin appears to be looking at the client, whereas you are referring to an export option on the server. The client only guarantees that writes must have been committed to disk on the server when either fsync() or close() have been called. Cheers, Trond ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 1:23 ` Phil Oester 2006-01-17 1:32 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 9:50 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 17:10 ` Jan Engelhardt 1 sibling, 1 reply; 22+ messages in thread From: Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 9:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Phil Oester; +Cc: linux-kernel, apiszcz NFS is still twice as slow as FTP, but best with a r/w size of 8192. DEFAULT, NO OPTIONS # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/d 0.01user 1.64system 0:34.23elapsed 4%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps TCP, NO CACHING # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,tcp,noac $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/a 0.02user 5.25system 0:58.43elapsed 9%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+197minor)pagefaults 0swaps UDP, NO CACHING # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,noac $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/b 0.02user 5.54system 1:00.34elapsed 9%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps UDP, NO CACHING (w/65535 r/w size) # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,noac,rsize=65535,wsize=65535 $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/c 0.01user 5.75system 0:59.89elapsed 9%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 0.04user 1.78system 0:14.16elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+190minor)pagefaults 0swaps UDP, NFSV3 + (w/8192 r/w size) $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/g 0.04user 1.78system 0:14.16elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+190minor)pagefaults 0swaps TCP, NFSV3 + (w/8192 r/w size) 0.03user 1.81system 0:14.98elapsed 12%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+190minor)pagefaults 0swaps UDP, NFSV3 + (w/16384 r/w size) # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,rsize=16834,wsize=16384 $ /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/e 0.03user 1.75system 0:20.20elapsed 8%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+192minor)pagefaults 0swaps UDP, NFSV3 + (w/32768 r/w size) # mount p34:/ /nfs/p34 -o nfsvers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768 /usr/bin/time cp 700mb.img /p34/x/f 0.01user 1.59system 0:32.87elapsed 4%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k 0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Phil Oester wrote: > On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 08:07:02PM -0500, Justin Piszcz wrote: >> I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes? > > Precisely. > > Phil > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
* Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? 2006-01-17 9:50 ` Justin Piszcz @ 2006-01-17 17:10 ` Jan Engelhardt 0 siblings, 0 replies; 22+ messages in thread From: Jan Engelhardt @ 2006-01-17 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Justin Piszcz; +Cc: Phil Oester, linux-kernel, apiszcz > NFS is still twice as slow as FTP, but best with a r/w size of 8192. Screams for a kftpd ;) Jan Engelhardt -- | Alphagate Systems, http://alphagate.hopto.org/ | jengelh's site, http://jengelh.hopto.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 22+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-01-18 0:43 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 22+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2006-01-17 1:07 Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 1:23 ` Phil Oester 2006-01-17 1:32 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 17:48 ` Tomasz Kłoczko 2006-01-17 18:11 ` Alan Cox 2006-01-17 18:24 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 18:33 ` Alan Cox 2006-01-17 18:37 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 18:38 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 18:53 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 18:55 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 19:01 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 19:03 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 20:39 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-17 20:45 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 22:07 ` Jan Engelhardt 2006-01-17 22:13 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-17 23:19 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 23:39 ` Lee Revell 2006-01-18 0:43 ` Trond Myklebust 2006-01-17 9:50 ` Justin Piszcz 2006-01-17 17:10 ` Jan Engelhardt
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).