On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Ross Walker wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Alex Still wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
On some servers this behavior returned despite rsize being set to 32k,
I had to set it to 8k to get reasonnable throughput. So there's
definitly something fishy going
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:16 PM, JohnS wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, Alex Still wrote:
>
>>
>> Clients are blade servers. The blade chassis have integrated cisco
>> switches, which are plugged to a cisco 6509. The NFS server is on
>> another site 40km away, directly connected to an
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:44 AM, Alex Still wrote:
> [...]
>
>>> On some servers this behavior returned despite rsize being set to 32k,
>>> I had to set it to 8k to get reasonnable throughput. So there's
>>> definitly something fishy going on. This has been reported on over 20
>>> machines, so I do
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 17:44 +0200, Alex Still wrote:
>
> Clients are blade servers. The blade chassis have integrated cisco
> switches, which are plugged to a cisco 6509. The NFS server is on
> another site 40km away, directly connected to another 6509. These
> datacenters are linked via DWDM.
[...]
>> On some servers this behavior returned despite rsize being set to 32k,
>> I had to set it to 8k to get reasonnable throughput. So there's
>> definitly something fishy going on. This has been reported on over 20
>> machines, so I don't think it's faulty hardware we're seeing.
>>
>> Any tho
On Jun 21, 2010, at 12:26 PM, Alex Still wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Nataraj wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Well, it's been a long time since I've done troubleshooting on large NFS
>> networks, but here's an idea...
>>
>> Are you seeing any kind of packet loss/retransmissions? Take a lo
[..]
>> /proc/mounts shows rsize has been negotiated to 1mB
>
> Have you tested the same thing with a Linux NFS server?
>
> The CentOS 5.x kernel has a maximum server [rw]size of 32Kb, so you
> would need to use something with a more recent kernel to get [rw]sizes
> to be 1Mb.
>
Haven't tried wit
Alexandre Lecuyer wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> We've had an interesting NFS performance issue with the following setup.
> Clients : CentOS 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.el5
> Server : Solaris 10 kernel Generic_142901-08
>
> Reading a file (not cached) with dd : dd if=file1 of=/dev/null
> bs=1024k count=100
> p
Alex Still wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Nataraj wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> Well, it's been a long time since I've done troubleshooting on large NFS
>> networks, but here's an idea...
>>
>> Are you seeing any kind of packet loss/retransmissions? Take a look at
>> netstat -s. When I
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Nataraj wrote:
[...]
> Well, it's been a long time since I've done troubleshooting on large NFS
> networks, but here's an idea...
>
> Are you seeing any kind of packet loss/retransmissions? Take a look at
> netstat -s. When I last did this work it was with NFS
Alexandre Lecuyer wrote:
> Hi list,
>
> We've had an interesting NFS performance issue with the following setup.
> Clients : CentOS 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.el5
> Server : Solaris 10 kernel Generic_142901-08
>
> Reading a file (not cached) with dd : dd if=file1 of=/dev/null
> bs=1024k count=100
> per
From: Alexandre Lecuyer
> We've had an interesting NFS performance issue with the
> following setup.
> Clients : CentOS 5.5, kernel 2.6.18-194.el5
> Server : Solaris 10 kernel Generic_142901-08
> /proc/mounts shows rsize has been negotiated to 1mB
> If we force rsize to a smaller value, 32kB, the
12 matches
Mail list logo
