From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S932248AbWAQTCB@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S932248AbWAQTCB (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:02:01 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932412AbWAQTCB
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:02:01 -0500
Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:59099 "EHLO pat.uio.no")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932248AbWAQTCA (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:02:00 -0500
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
       Tomasz =?iso-8859-2?Q?K=B3oczko?= <kloczek@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl>,
       Phil Oester <kernel@linuxace.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       apiszcz@lucidpixels.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601171354510.25508@p34>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601161957300.16829@p34>
	 <20060117012319.GA22161@linuxace.com>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601162031220.2501@p34>
	 <Pine.BSO.4.63.0601171846570.15077@rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl>
	 <1137521483.14135.59.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601171324010.25508@p34>
	 <1137523035.7855.91.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601171338040.25508@p34>
	 <1137523991.7855.103.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0601171354510.25508@p34>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:01:42 -0500
Message-Id: <1137524502.7855.107.camel@lade.trondhjem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.313, required 12,
	autolearn=disabled, AWL 0.64, FORGED_RCVD_HELO 0.05,
	PLING_QUERY 0.86, RCVD_IN_SORBS_DUL 0.14,
	UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL -5.00)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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
> >