Valerio Daelli wrote:
Hi list

we have a FreeBSD 7.0 NFS client (csup today, built world and kernel).
It mounts a Solaris 10 NFS share.
We have bad performance with 7.0 (3MB/s).
We have tried both UDP and TCP mounts, both sync and async.
This is our mount:

nest.xx.xx:/data/export/hosts/bsd7.xx.xx/ /mnt/nest.xx.xx nfs

Both our server (7.0 and Solaris 10) are Gigabit Ethernet, both are HP
Proliant DL360 i386 (NIC bge0):

FreeBSD 7.0:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ uname -a
FreeBSD bsd7.xx.xx 7.0-RC2 FreeBSD 7.0-RC2 #1: Mon Feb 18 17:46:46 CET
2008     [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BSD7  i386

This is our performance with iozone:
command line:

iozone -+q 1 -i 0 -i 1 -n 2048 -g 2G -Raceb iozone.xls -f

FreeBSD 7:

        File stride size set to 17 * record size.
random    bkwd  record  stride
              KB  reclen   write rewrite    read    reread    read
write    read rewrite    read   fwrite frewrite   fread  freread
            2048    1024  109883  101289   769058   779880
            2048    2048    3812    3674   760479   767066
            4096    1024  111156  106788   724692   728040
            4096    2048    3336    2241   157132   733417
            4096    4096    2829    3364   699351   699807

As you can see, while with record length less than 1024KB the speed is
'fast', with record of 2048 or more (I've tried with record much
bigger) we get only
3 MB/s.
Is this a known issue? If you need more details please contact me, I
am willing to do more tests to risolve this problem.

Can you characterize what is different about the NFS traffic when FreeBSD and Solaris are the clients? Does other network traffic to the server perform well? 2048 bytes records are > the 1500 byte MTU, so you will be invoking packet fragmentation and reassembly. Maybe you are getting packet loss for some reason. What does netstat say about interface errors on the bge, and for the protocol layers?

Follow-ups set to performance@

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to