Thanks for reply! We tested on 2.6.39-400 and the issue was gone.
On 6/3/2013 9:37 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 04:15:40PM +0200, jens kusch wrote:
Hi all,
we have a problem with nfsd performance in 2.6.32. They don't seem
to able to cope with the load. This is different in 2.6.18. Anybody
seen this before?
On Linux 2.6.32:
- IOs are often processed by nfsd processes in a delayed fashion, as
if they have been queued before (seen from application traces).
- NFS pool statistics show only a smaller fraction processed
immediately (10..20%). The rest is queued or delayed.
- On the other hand there are lots of nfsd processes that sit idle
at the same time!
- CPU usage is very unevenly distributed among the nfsd servers,
many are never used
I'd just like to emphasize one detail: note the output from
/proc/fs/nfsd/pool_stats below:
# pool packets-arrived sockets-enqueued threads-woken
overloads-avoided threads-timedout
0 7740103 1837083 885771 1837081 480
The stat overloads-avoided always gets incremented in our runs. Here
is a brief description:
The patch that added the "overload-avoidance" thing didn't work in
practice, and I couldn't figure out what it was meant to do, so it got
revoked with
78c210efdefe07131f91ed512a3308b15bb14e2f Revert "knfsd: avoid
overloading the CPU scheduler with enormous load averages"
Does appling that revoke help?
--b.
Counts how many times the sunrpc server layer chose not to wake an
nfsd thread, despite the presence of idle nfsd threads, because too
many nfsd threads had been recently woken but could not get enough
CPU time to actually run. In our runs, CPU utilization never gets
close to 100%, so I wonder why NFS decided not to wake up one of the
idle threads we see.
In our runs, CPU utilization never gets close to 100%, so I wonder
why NFS decided not to wake up one of the idle threads we see.
On Linux 2.6.18
- Performance via NFS is better
- CPU usage is more evenly distributed among the nfsd processes, all
nfsd processes are really used
We would appreciate any hint about what could be wrong in 2.6.32.
Best regards,
Jens
--
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
