Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
--On Saturday, June 22, 2002 22:23:59 -0700 Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually FreeBSD 5.x should have lockd support. I should know, I ported it from BSD/os. Will it be MFCed ? -- Mathieu Arnold To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
* Mathieu Arnold [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020623 00:36] wrote: --On Saturday, June 22, 2002 22:23:59 -0700 Alfred Perlstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually FreeBSD 5.x should have lockd support. I should know, I ported it from BSD/os. Will it be MFCed ? Not by me, it requires more work than I have time for right now. -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
again: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
There have been some useful responses to my original question, but I guess I didn't make it clear enough what the question was, because I got a lot of responses comparing the NFS servers on systems other than FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. I'm only interested in comparing the performance of these three systems (at least for the short run). If you've got a comparison of these three systems, or if someone has these systems running in-house and would be willing to benchmark them, I'd love to see the results! Thanks, -Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 09:57:55AM -0400, Matt Simerson wrote: FreeBSD has very solid NFS code in addition to being a very robust, versatile, and downright fun operating system. It's very easy to do everything I want to with FreeBSD. It's NFS is missing locking support but it's very fast and works very well with FreeBSD and Mac OS X clients. I haven't used it with anything else. Actually Matt Jacob has some NFS testsuites that makes FreeBSD servers blow chunks. Solaris still is the most robust NFS server of the general purpose UNIXes. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, David O'Brien wrote: Actually Matt Jacob has some NFS testsuites that makes FreeBSD servers blow chunks. Solaris still is the most robust NFS server of the general purpose UNIXes. I'm quite happy with the performance of my SGI machines as NFS servers. They're quite robust in my experience. I'd love to find some time to beat up on them a bit and compare my results to Slowlaris and FreeBSD. Brandon D. Valentine -- http://www.geekpunk.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++[++-][++-].[+-][+-]+.+++..++ +.+[++-]++.+++..+++.--..+. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
* David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020622 19:28] wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2002 at 09:57:55AM -0400, Matt Simerson wrote: FreeBSD has very solid NFS code in addition to being a very robust, versatile, and downright fun operating system. It's very easy to do everything I want to with FreeBSD. It's NFS is missing locking support but it's very fast and works very well with FreeBSD and Mac OS X clients. I haven't used it with anything else. Actually FreeBSD 5.x should have lockd support. I should know, I ported it from BSD/os. -- -Alfred Perlstein [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using 1970s technology, start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' Tax deductible donations for FreeBSD: http://www.freebsdfoundation.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
Terry makes some very excellent points that I've tested and documented in Real Life. Two years ago I did a bunch of extensive testing between three NFS servers (Sun, FreeBSD, NetApp) and one set of NFS clients (FreeBSD). Anyone that knows NFS really well would have predicted our test results that demonstrated the FreeBSD NFS server as being the best performer. The FreeBSD system was a home build with a GigE card, tuned MTU, large window, etc... running on a Cisco GigE switch. It solidly outperformed every other NFS server. If you were to have used Solaris clients, it's quite likely that one of the other two servers would have outperformed the FreeBSD server. Tuning the NFS server and the clients also has enormous potential for improvement. It took dozens of iterations to find the ideal combination of MTU size, nfsiod clients, nfsd servers, in the mail cluster I build. However, the engineering effort held large dividends. That mail system is still in use, seldom touched by human hands. It's withstood mail storms, DoS attacks, and many other network events that have been catastrophic to some of our other mail systems. Your best bet is to take a look at each of the platforms and determine which suits your needs best. Once you've etched that in stone, install your OS of choice and start tuning it to best suit your environment. The above is all unbiased. I personally have used quite a few NFS systems, a few more than I'd like to have. Many others will have opinions but here are mine: BSDI has, IMHO, one of the finest NFS implementations anywhere. I've used it extensively with NT, Mac OS, Mac OS X, BSDI, FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris clients. As of BSDI 4.0/4.1 (IIRC) it supported NFS locking and worked VERY, VERY well with BSDI clients (as should be expected). I don't know how it's doing these days, I've dropped off the BSDI mailing lists and stopped using it in favor of FreeBSD. FreeBSD has very solid NFS code in addition to being a very robust, versatile, and downright fun operating system. It's very easy to do everything I want to with FreeBSD. It's NFS is missing locking support but it's very fast and works very well with FreeBSD and Mac OS X clients. I haven't used it with anything else. OpenBSD and NetBSD both fall into the same category in my book. Both OS's attack a niche that is too narrow for my purposes. I've installed NetBSD on a HP 9000, Mac IIci, and Intel hardware and, it works, but I couldn't ever easily do anything useful with them. OpenBSD is OpenBSD and life is too short to fight some battles. Sun wrote the book on NFS. They also missed the boat. NFS on Sun is reliable and works well with Sun NFS clients. Good luck with anything else. Performance has never been a feature of Sun's NFS implementation so keep shopping if you care about it. Linux NFS sucks. Some will point out that it's made LOTs of progress. They should also note there's a long ways to go. Linux NFS interaction with NetApp, FreeBSD, and Sun NFS servers is very problematic and never achieves good performance. Matt On Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 11:15 PM, Terry Lambert wrote: Dan Ellard wrote: Has anyone done a side-by-side benchmark of the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD NFS servers on the same hardware? Note that I'm interested in server performance, not client performance. I'm particularly interested in read performance, but anything would be interesting. In lieu of actual data, which system do people think makes the best NFS server for heavily-loaded systems? I don't think anyone has benchmarked this; if they had, color me astonished. Your best bet would be to compare them yourself, since it's not that hard to install them. FWIW, You can't seperate server and client performance. If you have two clients and two servers, the first client caches operation X, and the second client does not, and you have two servers, one where operation X is very fast, and reads are OK, and the other where operation X is very slow, but reads are slightly faster than just OK, which one shows up as being better is going to depend in the client you use in the benchmarks. If you're asking about a server and not a client, then you would be better of asking about the particular client by name vs. each of the possible server choices. PS: Your answers are going to differ based on UDP vs. TCP and rsize/wsize. In particular, if you need to have an rsize/wsize larger than the MTU, make sure you are using TCP, not UDP, or you will be shooting yourself in the foot (most Linux clients wonder why when they use UDP, their nubers go to hell; that's why). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message `` Matt Simerson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unix Systems Engineer Interland, Inc. -- I drive too
FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
Has anyone done a side-by-side benchmark of the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD NFS servers on the same hardware? Note that I'm interested in server performance, not client performance. I'm particularly interested in read performance, but anything would be interesting. In lieu of actual data, which system do people think makes the best NFS server for heavily-loaded systems? Thanks, -Dan To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Dan Ellard wrote: In lieu of actual data, which system do people think makes the best NFS server for heavily-loaded systems? I've got no numbers to back it up but I'd say the performance I've seen is in this order: IRIX/XFS/NFSv3 FreeBSD/FFS/NFSv3 Linux/XFS/NFSv3 Brandon D. Valentine -- http://www.geekpunk.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++[++-][++-].[+-][+-]+.+++..++ +.+[++-]++.+++..+++.--..+. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: FreeBSD NFS server benchmarks vs. OpenBSD, NetBSD?
Dan Ellard wrote: Has anyone done a side-by-side benchmark of the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD NFS servers on the same hardware? Note that I'm interested in server performance, not client performance. I'm particularly interested in read performance, but anything would be interesting. In lieu of actual data, which system do people think makes the best NFS server for heavily-loaded systems? I don't think anyone has benchmarked this; if they had, color me astonished. Your best bet would be to compare them yourself, since it's not that hard to install them. FWIW, You can't seperate server and client performance. If you have two clients and two servers, the first client caches operation X, and the second client does not, and you have two servers, one where operation X is very fast, and reads are OK, and the other where operation X is very slow, but reads are slightly faster than just OK, which one shows up as being better is going to depend in the client you use in the benchmarks. If you're asking about a server and not a client, then you would be better of asking about the particular client by name vs. each of the possible server choices. PS: Your answers are going to differ based on UDP vs. TCP and rsize/wsize. In particular, if you need to have an rsize/wsize larger than the MTU, make sure you are using TCP, not UDP, or you will be shooting yourself in the foot (most Linux clients wonder why when they use UDP, their nubers go to hell; that's why). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
