I've submitted these to Roch and co before on the NFS list and off
list. My favorite case was writing 6250 8k files (randomly generated)
over NFS from a solaris or linux client. We originally were getting
20K/sec when I was using RAIDZ, but between switching to RAID-5 backed
iscsi luns in a zpool
Joe Little wrote:
On 7/31/06, Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
>
> The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
> client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
> server). I would still recommend the S
On Aug 1, 2006, at 03:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work tog
Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:08:04PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> > # echo '::offsetof vdev_t vdev_nowritecache' | mdb -k
> > offsetof (vdev_t, vdev_nowritecache) = 0x4c0
>
> Ok, then try this:
>
> echo '::spa -v' | mdb -k | awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1"+4c0/
>Right, but I never had this speed problem when the NFS server was
>running Linux on hardware that had the quarter of the CPU power and
>half the disk i/o capacity that the new Solaris-based one has.
>So either Linux's NFS client was more compatible with the bugs in
>Linux's NFS server and
>So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
>screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
>server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work together just fine but generally
only because the Lin
On 7/31/06, Dale Ghent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
>
> The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
> client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
> server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm sure
that's no surprise. But if you'r'e stuck on
Rich Teer wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really screwed up
in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy NFS for ages.
The 2.
On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x
really screwed up
in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server
that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
> So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really screwed up
> in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy NFS for ages.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSola
On Jul 31, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Hello all,
After setting up a Solaris 10 machine with ZFS as the new NFS server,
I'm stumped by some serious performance problems. Here are the
(admittedly long) details (also noted at
http://www.netmeister.org/blog/):
The machine in question
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 06:08:04PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> # echo '::offsetof vdev_t vdev_nowritecache' | mdb -k
> offsetof (vdev_t, vdev_nowritecache) = 0x4c0
Ok, then try this:
echo '::spa -v' | mdb -k | awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1"+4c0/W1"}' | mdb -kw
--Bill
___
Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm. It should have printed something like this:
>
> 857a0a60 vdev_nowritecache = 0 (B_FALSE)
>
> I think there might be a problem with the CTF data (debugging info)
> in U2. First, check /etc/release and make sure it says something like
> "
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 03:59:23PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestion. However, I'm not sure if the above pipeline
> is correct:
>
> 2# !! | awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1"::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache"}'
> 857a0580::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache
> 3# !! | mdb -k
>
Bill Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To test this theory, run this command on your NFS server (as root):
>
> echo '::spa -v' | mdb -k | \
> awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1"::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache"}' | \
> mdb -k | awk '{print $1"/W1"}' | mdb -kw
Thanks for the suggestio
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:17:00PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
> Is there anybody here who's using ZFS on Apple XRaids and serving them
> via NFS? Does anybody have any other ideas what I could do to solve
> this? (I have, in the mean time, converted the XRaid to plain old UFS,
> and performance
17 matches
Mail list logo
