NFS 100:1 performance loss
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Josip Loncaric josip at icase.eduFri Aug 18 14:56:49 PDT 2000
- Previous message: NFS 100:1 performance loss
- Next message: NFS 100:1 performance loss
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Jakob Østergaard wrote: > > On Fri, 18 Aug 2000, Josip Loncaric wrote: > > > We are running > > 16 kernel nfsd threads on each machine. Here is how long it takes to > > copy a 28,955,860 byte file from machine 1 to machine 2: > > > > rcp: 1.04 seconds (27.8 MB/s, where 1MB=10^6B) > > ftp: 1.12 seconds (25.8 MB/s) > > NFS 1KB: 12.35 seconds ( 2.3 MB/s, using rsize=wsize=1024) > > NFS 8KB: 129.42 seconds ( 0.2 MB/s, using rsize=wsize=8192) > > You do use the kernel nfs server right ? knfsd, not the old > userspace nfs daemon... We *do* use kernel nfsd -- but here is a hint of what may be wrong with Linux NFS: We did not have a serious NFS problem while we used jumbo frames (MTU=9000) on our Gigabit Ethernet interfaces. Recently, we switched to regular size frames (MTU=1500) so that the servers could communicate with machines which cannot handle jumbo frames. I assume that rsize=wsize=8192 means that NFS will send bursts of UDP packets to carry an 8KB message. Our MTU change means that an 8KB NFS message cannot be sent as a single UDP packet, but takes at least 6 UDP packets. On the theory that kernel nfsd cannot handle very high data rates and that some UDP packets were not being received correctly, I've changed the interrupt settings on our interface card and got much better results: 30 microseconds / 2 frames ------> NFS 8KB test takes 129.42 seconds 75 microseconds / 6 frames ------> NFS 8KB test takes 4.92 seconds Before, the NIC would interupt within 30 microseconds or on receiving 2 frames (whichever came first), thus delivering an incomplete NFS message in all cases. Now, it interrupts within 75 microseconds or on receiving 6 frames, which has a good chance of delivering the full NFS message. It's nice that we got back a factor of 25, but this NFS performance is still 4+ times slower than the plain 'rcp'. I'll experiment with this further and report what I learn. Sincerely, Josip -- Dr. Josip Loncaric, Senior Staff Scientist mailto:josip at icase.edu ICASE, Mail Stop 132C PGP key at http://www.icase.edu./~josip/ NASA Langley Research Center mailto:j.loncaric at larc.nasa.gov Hampton, VA 23681-2199, USA Tel. +1 757 864-2192 Fax +1 757 864-6134
- Previous message: NFS 100:1 performance loss
- Next message: NFS 100:1 performance loss
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
