On Saturday 31 January 2004 19:03, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
> On Saturday 31 January 2004 17:11, Melvyn Sopacua wrote:
> > On Saturday 31 January 2004 16:02, Jacques Beigbeder wrote:
> > >   time dd=/fileserver/aFile of=/fileserver/otherFile bs=32768
> > >
> > >
> > > NFS client        time            # pkts
> > > =============== =======         ======
> > > Solaris           3.11s           2296
> > > Linux Redhat9     2.42s           1929
> > > FreeBSD 5.1       19.72s          14887   <!!!
> > > FreeBSD 4.9       3.04s           6380
> > > FreeBSD 5.2       2.98s           5941
> > >
> > > All FreeBSD uses: mount_nfs -U -3 -r 32768 -w 32768 ...
> > >
> > > Question: is there any tuning on 5.1 to get better performances?
> >
> > Did you read the notes in src/UPDATING saying:
> > NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT FreeBSD 5.x IS SLOW:
>
> Could you pleas explain that numbers? I did almost the same test and found
> the following values in MByte/s:
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 5.2 / 4,6    (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux    -> 5.2 / lockup (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
> FBSD 4.9 -> 5.2 / 2,8    (CLient 233MMX, Server C3 800)
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 5.1 / 6,5    (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux    -> 5.1 / 9,8    (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
>
> FBSD 5.2 -> 4.9 / 5,8    (Client 1,1G Cel, Server C3 800)
> Linux    -> 4.9 / 9,8    (Client 733 PIII, Server C3 800)
> FBSD 4.9 -> 4.9 / 3,0    (Client 233MMX, Server C3 800)
>
> DragonFlyBSD as Server resulted in about 5% more performance than 4.9
> (linear exept Linux Client as it performs with the maximum Ethernet Speed)
>
> My tests were without modifying any rsize/wsize. But even with (rw)size 32k
> i had expected to be able to transfer about 9 MByte/s from a 233MMX box.
> 3MByte/s is absolutely lousy. What hardware do we need for just tranfsering
> bytes? 1GHz? I think 233 MHz with 64MB for OS should be more than enough.
> Regrettably I haven't had time to install a Linux on the 233 box.
>
> Btw. Linux = DebWoody (2.4.22) and all clients have fxp interfaces!
>
> Summary: 5.1 as server was a lot faster than 5.2 as server so is 4.9.
> Fastest was DragonFlyBSD but anyhow, just Linux as Client does a reasonable
> job. And not to forget the broken Linux -> 5.2 support!!!

Oh, I forgot to mention one very important thing: The idle cycles while NFS 
transfers. Like mentioned, the server is a C3 800 Processor with 256MB RAM 
nothing doing else than feeding NFS and SMB Clients (via SAMBA 3.0.1).
In case of my NFS mesurements, 5.2 had 20% idle while feeding 5.2 with 
3,5MByte/s!!!
Best was Dragonfly which had 60% idle when feeding the Linux box with 
9.8MByte/s while 4.9 only had 50% idle (while feeding the Linux Client with 
9.8Mbyte/s).

>
> -Harry

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature

Reply via email to