On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:22:17AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 05:47:56PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >> I squashed the previous set of 4 incremental patches into 3. Otherwise > >> there should be no differences w.r.t. the set that Jeff tested. > > > > Apologies for the long delay.... Unfortunately, I can't reproduce any of > > this at all: I reliably get about 112MB/s regardless of what combination > > of these patches I apply (including none). This is over gigabit > > ethernet to a server exporting a filesystem on raid 0 over 3 sata disks > > which iozone locally reports getting just over 200MB/s reads from. > > > > Any suggestions? > > Well, you gave me nothing to go on here, Bruce! Apologies for the lack of details.... > I assume you're using > the deadline I/O scheduler on the NFS server, is that right? If not, > you should be. Oops, sorry, no. Looks like it doesn't allow setting a scheduler on md0, so I'm assuming I should be setting it on the component drives. > Second, are you using iozone to reproduce? > > iozone -s 2000000 -r 64 -f /mnt/test/testfile -i 1 -w Yes, I was using your commandline. > That's the command line I was using. Third, I reproduced this on > 2.6.30-rc1. Perhaps you should start there and make sure you at least > see the same problem on that kernel. Otherwise, maybe we've made up for > the performance elsewhere. Right, could be, I was working on top of 2.6.31-rc1. > Finally, didn't you revert the autotuning patch? If so, you wouldn't > see this problem. Let me know how this goes, and if you still can't > reproduce it I'll setup for testing it here. Right, I re-applied the autotuning patch before applying the others. Thanks for the suggestions. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
