From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262665AbVAKKBZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:01:25 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262668AbVAKKBZ (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:01:25 -0500 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.88]:31469 "EHLO unthought.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262665AbVAKKBM (ORCPT ); Tue, 11 Jan 2005 05:01:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:01:10 +0100 From: Jakob Oestergaard To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Cc: Joel Jaeggli , Anton Blanchard , Phy Prabab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux NFS vs NetApp Message-ID: <20050111100109.GA347@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Oestergaard , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Joel Jaeggli , Anton Blanchard , Phy Prabab , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20050111025401.48311.qmail@web51810.mail.yahoo.com> <20050111035810.GG14239@krispykreme.ozlabs.ibm.com> <200501110920.j0B9JwAL006980@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200501110920.j0B9JwAL006980@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 04:19:57AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:42:30 PST, Joel Jaeggli said: > > > In actually using sfs97r1 published benchmarks to compare to hardware I > > was benchmarking (from emc, netapp and several roll-your own linux boxes) > > I found the published benchmark information alsmost entirely useless given > > that vendors tend to provide wildly silly hardware configurations. In the > > case of the openpower 720 (to use that for an example) the benchmarked > > machine has 70 15k rpm disks spread across 12 fibre channel controllers, > > 64GB of ram, 12GB of nvram and 7 network interfaces... > > If you threw that much hardware at a Linux system, ... theory ... or have you actually tried? > and then tuned it so that it > didn't really care about userspace performance (oh.. say.. by giving the knfsd > thread a RT priority ;), and tuned things like the filesystem, the slab > allocator and the networking stack to NFS requirements, it probably would be > screaming fast too.. ;) You'd need to run a 2.4 kernel. Current problems with 2.6: 1 ext3 causes kjournald oops on load 2 xfs has bad NFS/SMP/dcache interactions (you end up with undeletable directories) 3 knfsd will give you stale handles (can be worked around by stat'ing all your directories constantly on the server side) The SGI XFS kernel from CVS actually almost solved (2) above, but not entirely - I was going to report on that again to LKML. The other problems are still, as far as I know, unsolved. Not trying to flame anyone here, just trying to be realistic ;) -- / jakob