> >
> > 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
> throughput, but st
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 t
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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
