> >
> > So, did the patch get rid of the 1min + stalls you reported earlier?
> >
> Yes. The stalls (and the "server not responding" log messages are
> gone. Thanks! -- George
>
Ok, thats a start anyhow. Maybe someday we can explain the slow read
rates you are still observing.
Thanks for letting u
>
> So, did the patch get rid of the 1min + stalls you reported earlier?
>
Yes. The stalls (and the "server not responding" log messages are
gone. Thanks! -- George
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
ht
> It has been suggested that I move this thread to freebsd-stable. The
> thread so far (deficient NFS performance in FreeBSD 8):
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034006.html
>
> I updated my kernel to FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE. This improved my
It has been suggested that I move this thread to freebsd-stable. The
thread so far (deficient NFS performance in FreeBSD 8):
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers/2011-January/034006.html
I updated my kernel to FreeBSD 8.2-PRERELEASE. This improved my
throughput, but still not to
On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 2:29 AM, Claus Guttesen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> We recently found that the Performance of the NFS Client in FreeBSD is
>> worse than that in Linux.
>
> What OS is your nfs-server running?
Our NFS server is NetApp.
>
> You can ommit read- and write-size using tcp-mounts
> We recently found that the Performance of the NFS Client in FreeBSD is
> worse than that in Linux.
What OS is your nfs-server running?
> It's about 1/3 of NFS client in Linux. We have tuned TCP recv/send
> buffer, and got no gain. The mount parameters are: (We use amd)
> rw,nfsv3,lockd,grpid,in
Hi Listers,
We recently found that the Performance of the NFS Client in FreeBSD is
worse than that in Linux.
Linux [/net/iscsi] -jnlin- sudo ls -al
/net/iscsi/mysql/blog-2/var/pixblog_2/blogarticle.ibd
-rw-rw 1 3306 3306 734003200 2008-11-27 00:13
/net/iscsi/mysql/blog-2/var/pixblog_2/blogart
Ok just to finish this thread off:
After taking the power away from my switch for 30 seconds and powering
it up again - everything automagically works back to normals.
Merry Christmas & a Happy new Year.
--
Kimi
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 02:21:53AM +, Kimi Ostro wrote:
> Okay, this is getting stranger. transferring data between 8 machines
> on my network which are all running FreeBSD as having this problem,
> yet I cans download iso file off the internet at over 100KB/s.
Try transfers in different direc
Okay, this is getting stranger. transferring data between 8 machines
on my network which are all running FreeBSD as having this problem,
yet I cans download iso file off the internet at over 100KB/s.
--
Kimi
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
On 16/12/06, Jeremy Chadwick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your problem might be duplex-related. Can you provide some
netstat -in output (after you've scp'd stuff, etc.), as well as
ifconfig -a output?
nxclient-1.4.0-91.i386.tar.gz 100% 3423KB 23.1KB/s 02:28
NameMtu Netwo
On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 12:30:11AM +, Kimi Ostro wrote:
> Looks like I was wrong, as SCP is also just as slow as NFS
>
> I'm lost.
>
> I'm going to install 6.1-RELEASE to see if that "fixes" my problem.
Your problem might be duplex-related. Can you provide some
netstat -in output (after you
Looks like I was wrong, as SCP is also just as slow as NFS
I'm lost.
I'm going to install 6.1-RELEASE to see if that "fixes" my problem.
thanks! all!!
--
Kimi
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freeb
Kimi Ostro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> fserver:/data /media/datanfs
> rw,-b,-i,-s,-L,noauto
A small side note (probably not related to your actual
problem): It is usually a bad idea to use the -s ("soft")
option, because many programs are not prepared to handle
un
On 15/12/06, Jay Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do run statd and lockd, but let's keep it simple for now at first.
My settings are similar, only the sole flag I have is rw-- if you remove
those flags, does the speed change at all?
no, still the same 20-60KBps that hovers about 30KBps.
Kimi Ostro wrote:
Hi,
On 15/12/06, Jay Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the entry for the NFS share in /etc/fstab?
fserver:/data /media/datanfs
rw,-b,-i,-s,-L,noauto
I don't run clients with rpc.statd(8) rpc.lockd(8)
I do run statd and lockd, but l
Hi,
On 15/12/06, Jay Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What's the entry for the NFS share in /etc/fstab?
fserver:/data /media/datanfs rw,-b,-i,-s,-L,noauto
I don't run clients with rpc.statd(8) rpc.lockd(8)
--
Jay Chandler
Network Administrator, Chapman Unive
Kimi Ostro wrote:
I am have a realy big issue with NFS. I updated my fileserver to
-STABLE as of 13th December and suffering poor NFS performance. before
I was transferring data at around 6-8MBps now it is 30KBps - yes
30KBps!!. also cause some mounted shares to lock up.
I thought it was the
I am have a realy big issue with NFS. I updated my fileserver to
-STABLE as of 13th December and suffering poor NFS performance. before
I was transferring data at around 6-8MBps now it is 30KBps - yes
30KBps!!. also cause some mounted shares to lock up.
I thought it was the nve0 interface and
Michael Schuh wrote:
>
>
> > From: Michael Schuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:13:00 +0100
> > Subject: Re: serious networking (em) performance (ggate and
> > NFS)/Performance issues
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 10:29:17PM +0100, Michael Schuh wrote:
> From: Michael Schuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:13:00 +0100
> Subject: Re: serious networking (em) performance (ggate and
> NFS)/Performance issues
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
From: Michael Schuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:13:00 +0100
Subject: Re: serious networking (em) performance (ggate and
NFS)/Performance issues
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
i have same serious problems.
I don't repeate the posting, and describe my tests that i hav
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
> That question in itself is enough to start a war just as which is better,
> Linux or FreeBSD. Each have their pros and cons.
Is there any web pages out there that lists the pros and cons of each? I
searched through Yahoo and didn't get far... M
ok - to sum up a bit..
- for a good LAN, use UDP
- use v3 (this is what I thought)
- use standard data sizes
but still...
Our network connection between client and server is going directly over a
BaySwitch 450 24T, all interfaces set to 100baseTX, half-duplex.
So the LAN is good.
We run 4 nfsd'
:Actually, from what I've been told, TCP allows for much larger requests
:than what UDP does, afaik UDP maxes out at 8k while tcp should be able
:to go to 32k (maybe 64k) and give possibly better performance.
:
:Plus each time you 'hickup' under a UDP mount it's a lot more painful
:because since i
* Jan Conrad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 10:36] wrote:
> We're making plans to upgrade our NFS server to FreeBSD-4.3 (including
> new disks...) and I would like to ask about the status of NFS v3?
>
> Currently, a standard NFS mount (4.3BETA) gives us a sequential writing
> speed of approx. 2Mb/s
At 10:45 AM -0800 3/20/01, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
>Why are you using TCP? If you are on a reliable LAN, use UDP. TCP should
>be used for long haul NFS. There are lots of reasons for using UDP, if you
>want me to go into them, I will.
Although TCP imposes some overhead, it may provide better worst-c
Putting on my NFS hat... I would not recommend NFSv2 to anyone. Everyone
should be using NFSv3 at this point. It just does a much better job
at everything, including and most especially at writing.
TCP mounts are useful, and much safer, if you need to export NFS
across a fir
On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> Actually, from what I've been told, TCP allows for much larger requests
> than what UDP does, afaik UDP maxes out at 8k while tcp should be able
> to go to 32k (maybe 64k) and give possibly better performance.
This is true. I'm used to working with
* Gordon Tetlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010320 10:47] wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2001, Jan Conrad wrote:
>
> > We're making plans to upgrade our NFS server to FreeBSD-4.3 (including
> > new disks...) and I would like to ask about the status of NFS v3?
>
> Why do you need NFSv3? Are there particular fe
30 matches
Mail list logo
