NFSv3, and I will try various other rsize/wsize. Apologies for the accidental double post... We are utilizing XFS with a separate logdev, dedicated raid 1 15k sas drives, and are already utilizing write caching. I guess I can try playing with a few other things. Thanks for all the pointers. Jason It is said that Peter Chacko, at Thu, 03 Sep 2009, wrote: > Is this NFSv4 ? rsize and wsize > MTU size will cause fragmentation > and performance issues...Try making it around 4k .....You used 1<<15 > fir your example. if you don't do writes....then this shouldn't > matter...and of course NFS is Nfs is not For Scalability.. You cannot > get the same performance on NFS as you would get for localFS...May be > you can try 10g....still there is TCP/UDP/IP stack overhead..... > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Aaron Wiebe<epiphani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Have a look at these two kernel params - I'd recommend bumping them up > > to 128 (they're 16 by default). > > > > sunrpc.tcp_slot_table_entries > > sunrpc.udp_slot_table_entries > > > > Keep in mind that this could also be a serialization issue. ?If you've > > got a 3ms latency, and you're performing all of your opens serially, > > you aren't going to get much faster. ?If you do the work in parallel > > you'll likely get substantially better numbers. > > > > -Aaron > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 2:08 PM, Jason Legate<linux-nfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi, I'm trying to setup a server that we can create millions of files on over > >> NFS. ?When I run our creation benchmark locally ?I can get around 3000 files/ > >> second in the configuration we're using now, but only around 300/second over > >> NFS. ?It's mounted as this: > >> > >> rw,nosuid,nodev,noatime,nodiratime,hard,bg,nointr,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,tcp, > >> nfsvers=3,timeo=600,actimeo=600,nocto > >> > >> When I mount the same FS over localhost instead of across the lan, it performs > >> about full speed (the 3000/sec). ?Anyone have any ideas what I might tweak or > >> look at? > >> > >> We're going to be testing various XFS/LVM configs to get the best performance, > >> but right out the gate, NFS having a 10:1 penalty of performance doesn't bode > >> well. > >> > >> Thanks in advance, > >> Jason > >> -- > >> 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 > >> > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Peter Chacko > > NetDiox computing systems, > Network storage & OS training and research. > Bangalore, India. > www.netdiox.com > 080 2664 0708 -- 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
