nfs performance of 2800.
ian at physics.uq.edu.au
Wed Jan 10 19:32:01 CST 2007
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 10:01 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> I think this is the key, 2.4 vs 2.6 or to be more precise, the nfs-utils
> version typically shipped with 2.4 vs. that of 2.6. In recent version
> (>=1.0.0 according to man exports) the default changed from async to sync.
> This has been known to cause the kind of effects you mention. I recommend
> reading "man export", especially the part about async.
Yes. That's it. With async the performance on this test more than
It's a bit pathological (*): appending to a file with >> repeatedly
in a loop. A similar pathological test with procmail appending to an
mbox folder repeatedly gets this (for 10,000 messages):
2800 async: 2m34s
2800 sync : 5m55s
old file server: 2m23s
On the other hand sending the 10,000 messages as a single stream to
2800 async: 0.19s
2800 sync : 0.28s
old file server: 0.40s
(*) research students have a knack of creating pathological code so it's
worth looking at extreme cases.
Thanks for the reply
More information about the Linux-PowerEdge