On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:31 AM, Peter van Hooft
wrote:
>> You may want to try reducing sunrpc.tcp_max_slot_table_entries .
>> In CentOS 5 the number of slots is fixed: sunrpc.tcp_slot_table_entries = 16
>> In CentOS 6, this number is dynamic with a maximum of
>> sunrpc.tcp_max_slot_table_entries
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 02:24:27PM +0200, Peter van Hooft wrote:
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:35:29 -0500
> > From: Matt Garman
> > To: CentOS mailing list
> > Subject: [CentOS] nfs (or tcp or scheduler) changes between centos 5
> > and 6?
> Message: 4
> Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 08:35:29 -0500
> From: Matt Garman
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: [CentOS] nfs (or tcp or scheduler) changes between centos 5
> and 6?
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> We have
Also check out NetApp performance monitors, e.g. autoupport web site or
trusty old filer-mrtg. NFS ops and cpu load might be an indication of
things going wrong at the NetApp end - you might run into particular
bugs and want to upgrade to the latest patch level of the OS.
>> You may want to look at NFSometer and see if it can help.
>
> Haven't seen that, will definitely give it a try!
Try "nfsstat -cn" on the clients to see if any particular NFS operations
occur more or less frequently on the C6 systems.
Also look at the "lookupcache" option found in "man nfs":
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM, wrote:
>> The server in this case isn't a Linux box with an ext4 file system - so
>> that won't help ...
>>
> What kind of filesystem is it? I note that xfs also has barrier as a mount
> option.
The server is a NetApp FAS6280. It's using NetApp's filesystem. I
On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Devin Reade wrote:
> Have you looked at the client-side NFS cache? Perhaps the C6 cache
> is either disabled, has fewer resources, or is invalidating faster?
> (I don't think that would explain the C5 starvation, though, unless
> it's a secondary effect from retr
James Pearson wrote:
> m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Matt Garman wrote:
>>
>>>We have a "compute cluster" of about 100 machines that do a read-only
>>>NFS mount to a big NAS filer (a NetApp FAS6280). The jobs running on
>>>these boxes are analysis/simulation jobs that constantly read data off
>>>the
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Matt Garman wrote:
We have a "compute cluster" of about 100 machines that do a read-only
NFS mount to a big NAS filer (a NetApp FAS6280). The jobs running on
these boxes are analysis/simulation jobs that constantly read data off
the NAS.
*IF* I understand you, I've g
--On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 08:35:29 AM -0500 Matt Garman
wrote:
All indications are that CentOS 6 seems to be much more "aggressive"
in how it does NFS reads. And likewise, CentOS 5 was very "polite",
to the point that it basically got starved out by the introduction of
the 6.5 boxes.
S
Matt Garman wrote:
> We have a "compute cluster" of about 100 machines that do a read-only
> NFS mount to a big NAS filer (a NetApp FAS6280). The jobs running on
> these boxes are analysis/simulation jobs that constantly read data off
> the NAS.
>
> We recently upgraded all these machines from Cen
We have a "compute cluster" of about 100 machines that do a read-only
NFS mount to a big NAS filer (a NetApp FAS6280). The jobs running on
these boxes are analysis/simulation jobs that constantly read data off
the NAS.
We recently upgraded all these machines from CentOS 5.7 to CentOS 6.5.
We did
12 matches
Mail list logo
