Here's the NFS->UFS->iSCSI dtrace latency times for comparison:
dtrace: script './nfs.dtrace' matched 3 probes
^C
CPU FUNCTION
0 | :END
NFS3 op counts
==============
RFS3_FSSTAT 4
RFS3_SYMLINK 5
RFS3_MKDIR 73
RFS3_COMMIT 886
RFS3_CREATE 901
RFS3_RENAME 901
RFS3_ACCESS 1881
RFS3_SETATTR 3792
RFS3_LOOKUP 3882
RFS3_GETATTR 7579
RFS3_WRITE 46844
NFS3 op avg response time (usec)
================================
RFS3_GETATTR 7
RFS3_ACCESS 8
RFS3_LOOKUP 14
RFS3_FSSTAT 135
RFS3_RENAME 884
RFS3_SETATTR 2172
RFS3_CREATE 6410
RFS3_MKDIR 15766
RFS3_SYMLINK 22340
RFS3_WRITE 30577
RFS3_COMMIT 57034
NFS3 op avg system time (usec)
==============================
RFS3_ACCESS 6
RFS3_GETATTR 6
RFS3_LOOKUP 8
RFS3_FSSTAT 23
RFS3_SETATTR 27
RFS3_CREATE 66
RFS3_RENAME 75
RFS3_SYMLINK 90
RFS3_MKDIR 120
RFS3_WRITE 188
RFS3_COMMIT 306
On 5/5/06, Joe Little <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, it was already an NFS-discuss list message. Someone else added dtrace-discuss to it. I have already noted this to a degree on zfs-discuss, but it seems to be mainly a NFS specific issue at this stage.
On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:On Fri, Joe Little wrote:
> On 5/5/06, Spencer Shepler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, Joe Little wrote:
> >> Well, I used the dtrace script used here. The NFS implementation
> >> (server) is Solaris 11 B38, and the client and the RHEL linux
> >> revision, which doesn't have this problem going through other
> >> SAN-based NAS (NetApp, EMC, etc.. even iSCSI). I previously setup a
> >> Linux box as an iscsi initiator, XFS, and Linux's less than stellar
> >> kNFS server revision, and did not see this interaction. Thus, if there
> >> are any thread issues, its likely on Solaris' end or there is
> >> particularly bad interaction with linux clients if and only if the
> >> solaris backend is iSCSI. That latter doesn't make sense.
> >
> >It is a server response time issue as you have demonstrated with data.
> >The server in the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path is not responding as quickly
> >as other combinations and for this particular application, the overall
> >throughput is subpar.
> >
> >Focusing on the disparity found to understand why the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI
> >combo is not working well seems like the correct path.
> >
>
> That's where I'm at a loss. Has the NFS/ZFS/iSCSI path been tested by
> Sun at all?
I don't know and this seems like a good point to move the
discussion to zfs-discuss and nfs-discuss to see if there
is additional input.
Spencer
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
