On 20 October 2012 13:42, Nikolay Denev <nde...@gmail.com> wrote: > Here are the results from testing both patches : > http://home.totalterror.net/freebsd/nfstest/results.html > Both tests ran for about 14 hours ( a bit too much, but I wanted to compare > different zfs recordsize settings ), > and were done first after a fresh reboot. > The only noticeable difference seems to be much more context switches with > Ivan's patch.
Thank you very much for your extensive testing! I don't know how to interpret the rise in context switches; as this is kernel code, I'd expect no context switches. I hope someone else can explain. But, you have also shown that my patch doesn't do any better than Rick's even on a fairly large configuration, so I don't think there's value in adding the extra complexity, and Rick knows NFS much better than I do. But there are a few things other than that I'm interested in: like why does your load average spike almost to 20-ties, and how come that with 24 drives in RAID-10 you only push through 600 MBit/s through the 10 GBit/s Ethernet. Have you tested your drive setup locally (AESNI shouldn't be a bottleneck, you should be able to encrypt well into Gbyte/s range) and the network? If you have the time, could you repeat the tests but with a recent Samba server and a CIFS mount on the client side? This is probably not important, but I'm just curious of how would it perform on your machine. _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
