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