usleep wrote:
> - Second installation
> - FreeNAS, RAID0
> - Tested throughput ( to local RAID0 ):
> - ftp: 82MB/s
> - nfs: 75MB/s
> - cifs/samba: 42MB/s
Thanks a lot for these clear references !
> Test issues ( things that get you confused )
> - if you expect to be able to co
Manolis Kiagias wrote:
First thing that may be wrong is the understanding of the time
figures. The documentation is not clear about them and the -h option
is not working :
client6# time -h tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
-h: Command not found.
0.000u 0.000s 0:00.00 0.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Just
Peter Boosten wrote:
On server, it means : 1440MB / 84s = 17MB/s
On client, that becomes : 1440MB / 266s = 5.4MB/s
I know the disk is not very fast, but i would like the NFS layer not
to add too much...
I don't want my users to wait between 3 or 4 times more because
computer is using NFS.
I am trying a memory disk on server to see the effect of hard drive
performances, and also discovering the function :-)
The conclusion is that memory disk is faster that this drive ;-)
45MB/s vs 10Mb/s
But the NFS access to the memory drive is still 5MB/s :-(
As there is no more hard drive in
Bernard Dugas wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>
>>> nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null
>>> 5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4%69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w
>>>
>>> client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
>>> tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
>>> 3.985u 19.779s 4:32.47 8.7%
On 31 dec 2008, at 08:53, Bernard Dugas
wrote:
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null
5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4%69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w
client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
3.985u 19.779s 4:32
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null
5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4%69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w
client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
3.985u 19.779s 4:32.47 8.7% 74+1457k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Note : clientusr-am
On 12/30/08, Michel Talon wrote:
>
> Bernard Dugas wrote:
>
> > So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i
> > will save the drive access time ?
> >
> > Or do you think the NFS network access is so much slow that the disk
> > access time is just marginal ?
> >
> > Do you
nfsserver# time tar -cf - clientusr-amd64 > /dev/null
5.001u 12.147s 1:23.92 20.4%69+1369k 163345+0io 0pf+0w
client9# time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null
tar: Removing leading '/' from member names
3.985u 19.779s 4:32.47 8.7% 74+1457k 0+0io 0pf+0w
Note : clientusr-amd64 is around 1.3GB and i
Matthew Seaman wrote:
It's 'mtu ' not '-mtu '
I'm confused, thanks so much !
There was no option without - in my old unix time ;-)
Thanks to you, it seems that my max mtu is 9216 on em :
client9# ifconfig em1 mtu 9216
client9# ifconfig em1 mtu 9217
ifconfig: ioctl (set mtu): Invalid
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
This is a Gbps network with only 1 switch between nfs server and
client, with less than 0.2ms ping. So bandwidth should not be a
it should work with near-wire speed on 100Mbit clients.
Server and clients are 1Gbps.
But i have a 4 factor of performance for reading only
Bernard Dugas wrote:
But :
nfsserver# ifconfig re0 -mtu 7422
ifconfig: -mtu: bad value
nfsserver# ifconfig re0 -mtu 7421
ifconfig: -mtu: bad value
Syntax error on the ifconfig command line:
% ifconfig de0
de0: flags=8843 metric 0 mtu 1500
[...]
% sudo ifconfig de0 mtu 1460
% ifconf
Vince wrote:
Trying to change mtu, but don't look easy, where can i find the
possible range for ports ?
MTU can be a pain, check what your switch supports, and the manpage for
your network driver should say what MTU the nic supports.
Thank you for the method !
It seems that em and re are no
there is slowdown because network introduces slight delay,
but few ms at most if network is made properly
This is a Gbps network with only 1 switch between nfs server and
client, with less than 0.2ms ping. So bandwidth should not be a
it should work with near-wire speed on 100Mbit clients.
_
Bernard Dugas wrote:
> Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>>> So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i
>>> will save the drive access time ?
>>
>> FreeBSD automatically use all free memory as cache.
>
> OK
>
> > there is slowdown because network introduces slight delay,
> > but few
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i
will save the drive access time ?
FreeBSD automatically use all free memory as cache.
OK
> there is slowdown because network introduces slight delay,
> but few ms at most if network is made properly
As to NFS speed, you should experiment with NFS on TCP and run a large
number of nfsd on the server (see nfs_server_flags in rc.conf). For
example -n 6 or -n 8. Maybe also experiment with the readsize and
writesize. Anyways, i don't think you can expect the same throughput
via NFS (say 10 MB/s, or
less than 2Go to share and 2GO DDR2 is affordable.
you don't have to.
So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i will
save the drive access time ?
FreeBSD automatically use all free memory as cache.
___
freebsd-questions
Bernard Dugas wrote:
> So you din't think that if all files are already in RAM on server, i
> will save the drive access time ?
>
> Or do you think the NFS network access is so much slow that the disk
> access time is just marginal ?
>
> Do you think i should use something more efficient than
Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i can see a reading speed difference 4 time slower on client than on
server (time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null).
I will play with jumbo MTU for network performance, but would anybody
know if i can ask system files NFS exports to stay in server memory ?
I have less than 2G
i can see a reading speed difference 4 time slower on client than on server
(time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null).
I will play with jumbo MTU for network performance, but would anybody know if
i can ask system files NFS exports to stay in server memory ? I have less
than 2Go to share and 2GO DDR
Hi,
I'm working on a project to have many diskless clients PXEbooting on 1
nfs server.
With some help :-) i could manage to share almost all system files (/,
/usr,..) through NFS.
i can see a reading speed difference 4 time slower on client than on
server (time tar -cf - /usr > /dev/null).
22 matches
Mail list logo
