Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
On Tuesday, 2007-04-24 at 15:38:12, I wrote: I have googled for quite a while but can't find a thing. Anyone here using NFS and GigE+jumbo frames with Gentoo? Just to follow up for the archives' sake: this seems to be an old and frustrating problem, I've run into a few messages dating back to 2002 of people with similar problems. Like here: http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2002-December/005568.html and a more recent one on Sun hardware: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=74750 I've switched back to MTU 1500 for now and if I find the time I'll ask for news on this on some kernel list. cheers! Matthias -- I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 pgplWDFOWQBJq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
Matthias Bethke wrote: On Tuesday, 2007-04-24 at 15:38:12, I wrote: I have googled for quite a while but can't find a thing. Anyone here using NFS and GigE+jumbo frames with Gentoo? Just to follow up for the archives' sake: this seems to be an old and frustrating problem, I've run into a few messages dating back to 2002 of people with similar problems. Like here: http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2002-December/005568.html and a more recent one on Sun hardware: http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=74750 I've switched back to MTU 1500 for now and if I find the time I'll ask for news on this on some kernel list. Neither of these cases should have any relation to your problem since they talking about NFS on a 2.4 kernel or over UDP in NFSv2. kashani -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
Hi kashani, on Monday, 2007-04-23 at 11:11:40, you wrote: It sounds like Gigabit Ethernet to me. Yes, that's it. Keep in mind that not all fastE or gigE switches support jumbo frames. Additionally not all cards support jumbo frames either though you can certainly set them to an MTU of 9000 and watch things break. I had that problem before with the Server's onboard Broadcom chip; fortunately it just breaks completely when you up the MTU :) Now I installed an Intel 82545GM card that officially supports jumbo frames and that I haven't heard anyone complain about. The clients all have the same 82547EI onboard chip. To the original poster, I'd do some googling and verify that all the network cards and switches involved can do jumbo frames and that it is enabled on each device as needed. Check. The switches are HP ProCurve 2824 supporting up to 9216 bytes per frame, and I checked the config several times. Jumbo frames are enabled on all ports, and it's a rather basic config anyway, no VLANs 'n stuff, no voice LAN features, just switching. And for everything else but NFS locking it does work fine. A plain netcat from /dev/zero to /dev/null goes from some 35 MB/s at an MTU of 1500 to over 80, ssh does very well, and even NFS file operations other than locking work. I have googled for quite a while but can't find a thing. Anyone here using NFS and GigE+jumbo frames with Gentoo? cheers! Matthias -- I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0A A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 pgpMKwDcMvlIA.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
I've been fiddling with this for some days and can't but assume it's a bug in one of the Gentoo patches to either the kernel or NFS tools: Basically, NFS locking breaks as soon as I enable jumbo frames on both server and client. touch foobar flock foobar ls works fine in my NFS-mounted home with an MTU of 1500. An MTU of 9000 is great for general net throughput so I wanted to use it on both the server and the clients, but the above sequence hangs indefinitely when I try. I'm aware flock() isn't supposed to work correctly with NFS anyway, but all kinds of stuff depends on it at least pretending to. The strange thing is, SuSE 10.1 as a client works fine with jumbo frames, just my Gentoo box doesn't. I tried enabling nfs_debug with sysctl and sniffing the wire with tcpdump and wireshark but with my pretty basic knowledge of NFS workings I didn't spot anything conspicuous other than that lookup(msbethke/foobar) nfs_update_inode(0:18/3424742 ct=1 info=0x6) nfs_fhget(0:18/1081970 ct=1) permission(0:18/1081970), mask=0x4, res=0 seems to be the exchange after which the hang occurs. Our server is running 2.6.18-hardened-r6 and nfs-utils-1.0.12. The clients are mostly SuSE 10.1 boxes with kernel 2.6.16.21-0.21-smp and nfs-utils-1.0.7-36 while my workstation has 2.6.20-gentoo-r6 (was linux-2.6.19-gentoo-r5 before) and the same ns-utils as the server. -- I prefer encrypted and signed messages. KeyID: FAC37665 Fingerprint: 8C16 3F0m A6FC DF0D 19B0 8DEF 48D9 1700 FAC3 7665 pgpVv5f4MJwd6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
On 23 April 2007, Matthias Bethke wrote: I've been fiddling with this for some days and can't but assume it's a bug in one of the Gentoo patches to either the kernel or NFS tools: Basically, NFS locking breaks as soon as I enable jumbo frames on both server and client. touch foobar flock foobar ls works fine in my NFS-mounted home with an MTU of 1500. An MTU of 9000 is great for general net throughput so I wanted to use it on both the server and the clients, but the above sequence hangs indefinitely when I try. Just curious: What kind of network (layer 2) is this that allows an MTU of 9000? Uwe -- The Informal Linux Group Namibia: http://www.linux.org.na SysEx (Pty) Ltd.: http://www.SysEx.com.na -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Uwe Thiem said the following on 2007-04-23 17:53: Just curious: What kind of network (layer 2) is this that allows an MTU of 9000? Uwe It sounds like Gigabit Ethernet to me. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFGLPN6JDzv6DN+QUkRAqfuAKDQsjPMRMMnnSBKeOTynrB8vsC9sACfce+m T5AGW8nM3NTlg66jHxpzZJk= =2WDI -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
Tony Stohne wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Uwe Thiem said the following on 2007-04-23 17:53: Just curious: What kind of network (layer 2) is this that allows an MTU of 9000? Uwe It sounds like Gigabit Ethernet to me. Keep in mind that not all fastE or gigE switches support jumbo frames. Additionally not all cards support jumbo frames either though you can certainly set them to an MTU of 9000 and watch things break. To the original poster, I'd do some googling and verify that all the network cards and switches involved can do jumbo frames and that it is enabled on each device as needed. kashani -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] NFS vs. jumbo frames
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 kashani said the following on 2007-04-23 20:11: Keep in mind that not all fastE or gigE switches support jumbo frames. Additionally not all cards support jumbo frames either though you can certainly set them to an MTU of 9000 and watch things break. To the original poster, I'd do some googling and verify that all the network cards and switches involved can do jumbo frames and that it is enabled on each device as needed. Good point, on both comments! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32) iD8DBQFGLPzoJDzv6DN+QUkRArESAJ99y7HrbMdv/0QxZEsETlJpD63d9QCfWpGT YEGKnn0hz9HT5bye2c15AqU= =n2C9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
