On Tue, 20 Apr 2010, Chuck Lever wrote: > On 04/20/2010 05:21 PM, Stefan Krüger wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > >> On 04/19/2010 08:21 AM, Stefan Krüger wrote: > >>> On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Stefan Krüger wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello list, > >>>> > >>>> I have some really strange nfs performance issues > >>>> > >>>> NFS server is Fedora 12, running > >>>> * kernel-2.6.32.11-99.fc12.x86_64 and > >>>> * nfs-utils-1.2.1-4.fc12.x86_64 > >>>> * nfs shared /home is ext4 with default mount options > >>>> > >>>> /etc/exports: > >>>> /home 192.168.1.0/255.255.255.0(rw,sync) > >>>> > >>>> nfs and nfslock are up and running > >>>> > >>>> Nothing else touched on the server nfs-wise. > >>>> > >>>> NFS client is Mac OS X, version 10.6.3 > >>>> > >>>> My /home dir is automounted on the Mac with the following mount options: > >>>> * nosuid,nodev,resvport,rdirplus,rwsize=1048576 > >>>> (nfsv3 and tcp are default, I have also tried udp, and with and without > >>>> rdirplus, with different read/write sizes (started with 32k, less for udp, > >>>> and then cranked it up to 1m to make the beachball appear less often), > >>>> but I still have issues no matter which options I chose) > >>>> > >>>> Anyway, I'm stuck now, surfing the web with Safari is a very unpleasant > >>>> experience on nfs, beachball every now and then together with a huge > >>>> amount of network traffic (RX with 20MB/s+ peaks), not unusual to see > >>>> several gigabytes received after some minutes browsing, XCode shows a > >>>> ''The document "SomeFile.m" could not be saved.''-error after some > >>>> edits, Opera hangs for minutes when closing, etc etc. > >>>> > >>>> It's horrible :( > >>>> > >>>> Another example, extracting > >>>> http://www.bignerdranch.com/solutions/Cocoa-3rd.tgz took over 3min! > >>>> > >>>> $ time tar xzf Cocoa-3rd.tgz > >>>> 0.169u 3.198s 5:51.10 0.9% 0+0k 1+6972io 0pf+0w > >>>> $ time rm -rf Solutions-Cocoa-3rd/ > >>>> 0.014u 0.477s 0:45.59 1.0% 0+0k 1+1io 0pf+0w > >>>> > >>>> So any help or hints really appreciated > >>> > >>> So, no answers yet, but I did some more tests, i.e. I tried extracting > >>> the Cocoa-3rd.tgz (2.2MB, 12MB untar'ed) on FreeBSD 8.0-REL (running > >>> inside VMWare though), and still it was much faster (5:51.10 vs > >>> 0:09.35) than extracting on bare metal fedora12: > >>> > >>> $ time tar xfz Cocoa-3rd.tgz > >>> 0.104u 1.474s 0:09.35 16.7% 0+0k 0+4896io 0pf+0w > >>> $ time rm -rf Solutions-Cocoa-3rd > >>> 0.006u 0.160s 0:01.24 12.9% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > >>> > >>> I captured the nfs traffic with tcpdump (tcpdump -i eth1 -s 0 -w > >>> nfs.out host nfssrv and port 2049) on both freebsd8 (interface for > >>> freebsd is a bit different ofc) and fedora12 while running > >>> > >>> tar xfz Cocoa-3rd.tgz Solutions-Cocoa-3rd/02_GetStarted > >>> > >>> (which extracts just a couple of files) , you can find them here: > >>> > >>> Fedora 12 tcpdump -> http://www.dpaste.org/5cvp/ > >>> FreeBSD 8 tcpdump -> http://www.dpaste.org/uCGX/ > >> > >> The number of packets is around 1800 for the FreeBSD server and around > >> 1940 for the Linux server. The RPC counts you posted in a later email > >> show that Linux does more LOOKUP and ACCESS requests. But generally, it > >> looks like your client is doing roughly the same amount of work in both > >> cases. > >> > >> But what catches my eye in the F12 tcpdump is that there are pauses > >> where the server reply is delayed by a few milliseconds after a SETATTR > >> or COMMIT. This looks normal, since disk writes can take a few > >> milliseconds. > >> > >> FreeBSD doesn't appear to have these pauses, so I suspect FreeBSD is > >> doing something illegal. No NFS server can turn a SETATTR around in > >> just a few microseconds and claim that it is on permanent storage, > >> unless it has some kind of NVRAM. > > > > First of all, thanks for your answer Chuck :) > > > > there are some additional packets because the .tgz was on the same > > (nfs-mounted) dir and on a local dir during the freebsd test (so some > > extra reads etc. sneaked in the linux tcpdump/nfsstat -s) > > > > Just for the record, Solaris 10u8 (UFS) extraction time is almost the > > same as FreeBSDs: > > > > $ time tar xfz Cocoa-3rd.tgz > > 0.111u 1.621s 0:09.03 19.1% 0+0k 8+4966io 0pf+0w > > > > So I guess they're both cheating ;-) > > Is Solaris running in a guest too? Yes, this test was also done using VMWare I also installed Fedora12/ext4 in VMWare and got -> $ time tar xfz Cocoa-3rd.tgz 0.135u 2.151s 0:36.50 6.2% 0+0k 3+4770io 0pf+0w Well, 36 seconds, still 3x longer than Solaris/FreeBSD but way better than 5min on bare metal Anyway, to get some real data I splitted my raid1 mirror on the nfs server yesterday and installed FreeBSD 8 on the (now) free disk I don't know why but NFS performance is stunning, extracting the tgz only takes seconds, Opera doesn't hang for minutes when closing, no strange rx spikes and a lot less total bytes received on the same hardware with the same files (no special tweaks done, only change on freebsd was to start 8 nfsd servers [default is 4], fs is UFS with softdeps) I can't explain it... > What physical file system are you using on the Linux NFS server? See my first mail ("nfs shared /home is ext4 with default mount options"), so it's ext4 (I did some tests with xfs/ext3 using fedora12/VMWare, too, same bad results though) -- 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
