From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932244AbWAQRsg (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:48:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932254AbWAQRsg (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:48:36 -0500 Received: from rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl ([153.19.42.16]:24449 "EHLO rudy.mif.pg.gda.pl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932244AbWAQRsg (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:48:36 -0500 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:48:32 +0100 (CET) From: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Tomasz_K=B3oczko?= To: Justin Piszcz cc: Phil Oester , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, apiszcz@lucidpixels.com Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20060117012319.GA22161@linuxace.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="0-393772069-1137520112=:15077" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --0-393772069-1137520112=:15077 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT 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* --0-393772069-1137520112=:15077--