On 09/22/2009 05:42 PM, Ben Greear wrote:
I'm running some performance tests on NFSv3 on a slightly hacked 2.6.31 kernel.
I realized that LRO on the NICs was disabled because I had enabled ip-forwarding. I re-enabled that, and now can get about 18Gbps read rates (on the wires), using MTU 1500. Take it easy, Ben
Both: 64-bit linux. Dual-port 10G NIC, 82599 (I think, at any rate it's the new Intel 5GT/s pci-e gen2 chipset, ixgbe driver) MTU 1500 Server: dual Intel E5530 2.4Ghz processors. Serving 2 25M files from tmpfs (RAM) Client: Core i7 3.2Ghz, quad-core. I'm running 10 mac-vlans on each physical interface, one NFS mount per interface (my patches are to allow multiple mounts per client OS). one reader for each mac-vlan and one on the physical, reading 16m chunks O_DIRECT is enabled for the readers. Mounts are using 'noatime', leaving everything else at defaults. Total read bandwidth is about 12Gbps, but it varies quite a bit and I've seen short term (10 seconds or so) averages go up to 15Gbps. These are on-the-wire stats reported by the NICs, not actual NFS throughput. Some things of interest: * Rates bounce around several Gbps * I see tcp retransmits in netstat -s on the server * I see zero errors (pkt loss, etc) reported by the NICs. * Reading 100M files slows down the test. * 2M and 16M reads are about equivalent (the normal bouncing of the rates makes it hard to tell) * Messing with rmem max, backlog, and other network tunings doesn't seem to matter. * Running 10 readers (5 on each physical NIC) ran at 16Gbps for a few seconds (higher than I'd seen with 10..but then it went back down to around 13Gbps. * Running 6 seems slower..about 11.5Gbps on average. * Using 9000 MTU yields a fairly steady 16.5Gbps throughput. This may be about the max IO bandwidth for the server machine...but I know the client can do full 10Gbps tx + rx on both ports (using pktgen and 1514 byte pkts). Here is snippet of top on the client. bthelper is the thing doing the reads: top - 17:26:25 up 13 min, 3 users, load average: 25.45, 23.12, 13.98 Tasks: 227 total, 3 running, 224 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.2%us, 1.4%sy, 0.0%ni, 74.4%id, 0.0%wa, 0.6%hi, 23.4%si, 0.0%st Mem: 12326604k total, 1343680k used, 10982924k free, 30912k buffers Swap: 14254072k total, 0k used, 14254072k free, 112084k cached 1586 root 15 -5 0 0 0 R 39.2 0.0 1:47.91 rpciod/6 22 root 15 -5 0 0 0 R 38.5 0.0 1:46.94 ksoftirqd/6 3841 root 3 -17 49320 33m 980 D 20.3 0.3 0:23.05 bthelper 3840 root 3 -17 49320 33m 980 D 18.9 0.3 0:23.43 bthelper 3836 root 3 -17 49320 33m 980 D 12.0 0.3 0:26.39 bthelper 3849 root 3 -17 49320 33m 980 D 11.3 0.3 0:22.74 bthelper And, here is the server: top - 17:28:02 up 2:03, 2 users, load average: 0.08, 0.47, 0.68 Tasks: 291 total, 1 running, 290 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 2.5%sy, 0.0%ni, 95.5%id, 0.0%wa, 0.2%hi, 1.7%si, 0.0%st Mem: 12325312k total, 617720k used, 11707592k free, 8240k buffers Swap: 0k total, 0k used, 0k free, 101016k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 2171 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 4.0 0.0 4:41.54 nfsd 2163 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.6 0.0 3:06.09 nfsd 2166 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.6 0.0 4:45.78 nfsd 2176 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.6 0.0 4:45.45 nfsd 2164 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.3 0.0 3:08.28 nfsd 2165 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.3 0.0 4:20.12 nfsd 2167 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.3 0.0 4:31.29 nfsd 2170 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.3 0.0 4:50.80 nfsd 2174 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.3 0.0 4:50.74 nfsd 2168 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.0 0.0 4:53.15 nfsd 2169 root 15 -5 0 0 0 S 3.0 0.0 4:48.07 nfsd I'm curious if anyone else has done similar testing... Thanks, Ben
-- Ben Greear <greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com -- 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
