"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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.... No worries. ;-) >> 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. Right, set the scheduler on the component drives. I was testing on hardware raid, fwiw. Again, let me know if you need me to reproduce this. It will give me an excuse to get back that really nice machine I was using for testing. ;-) -Jeff -- 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
