mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Theurer <habanero@us.ibm.com>
To: Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@valinux.co.jp>
Cc: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no, neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au,
	davem@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [NFS] Re: [PATCH] zerocopy NFS for 2.5.36
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 16:16:23 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200210221616.23282.habanero@us.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021020.053424.41629995.taka@valinux.co.jp>

On Saturday 19 October 2002 15:34, Hirokazu Takahashi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > Congestion avoidance mechanism of NFS clients might cause this
> > > situation.  I think the congestion window size is not enough
> > > for high end machines.  You can make the window be larger as a
> > > test.
> >
> > Is this a concern on the client only?  I can run a test with just one
> > client and see if I can saturate the 100Mbit adapter.  If I can, would we
> > need to make any adjustments then?  FYI, at 115 MB/sec total throughput,
> > that's only 2.875 MB/sec for each of the 40 clients.  For the TCP result
> > of 181 MB/sec, that's 4.525 MB/sec, IMO, both of which are comfortable
> > throughputs for a 100Mbit client.
>
> I think it's a client issue. NFS servers don't care about cogestion of UDP
> traffic and they will try to response to all NFS requests as fast as they
> can.
>
> You can try to increase the number of clients or the number of mount points
> for a test. It's easy to mount the same directory of the server on some
> directries of the client so that each of them can work simultaneously.
>    # mount -t nfs server:/foo   /baa1
>    # mount -t nfs server:/foo   /baa2
>    # mount -t nfs server:/foo   /baa3

I don't think it is a client congestion issue at this point.  I can run the 
test with just one client on UDP and achieve 11.2 MB/sec with just one mount 
point.  The client has 100 Mbit Ethernet, so should be the upper limit (or 
really close).  In the 40 client read test, I have only achieved 2.875 MB/sec 
per client.  That and the fact that there are never more than 2 nfsd threads 
in a run state at one time (for UDP only) leads me to believe there is still 
a scaling problem on the server for UDP.  I will continue to run the test and 
poke a prod around.  Hopefully something will jump out at me.  Thanks for all 
the input!

Andrew Theurer

  reply	other threads:[~2002-10-22 21:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-09-18  8:14 Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-09-18 23:00 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-18 23:54   ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19  0:16     ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-19  2:13       ` Aaron Lehmann
2002-09-19  3:30         ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-19 10:42           ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19 13:15       ` [NFS] " Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-09-19 20:42         ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-19 21:12           ` David S. Miller
2002-09-21 11:56   ` Pavel Machek
2002-10-14  5:50 ` Neil Brown
2002-10-14  6:15   ` David S. Miller
2002-10-14 10:45     ` kuznet
2002-10-14 10:48       ` David S. Miller
2002-10-14 12:01   ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-14 14:12     ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-16  3:44     ` Neil Brown
2002-10-16  4:31       ` David S. Miller
2002-10-16 15:04         ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-17  2:03         ` [NFS] " Andrew Theurer
2002-10-17  2:31           ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-17 13:16             ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-17 13:26               ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-17 14:10                 ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-17 16:26                   ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-18  5:38                     ` Trond Myklebust
2002-10-18  7:19                       ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-18 15:12                         ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-19 20:34                           ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-22 21:16                             ` Andrew Theurer [this message]
2002-10-23  9:29                               ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-24 15:32                                 ` Andrew Theurer
2002-10-16 11:09       ` Hirokazu Takahashi
2002-10-16 17:02         ` kaza
2002-10-17  4:36           ` rddunlap
2002-09-19  2:00 [NFS] " Lever, Charles
     [not found] <3D89176B.40FFD09B@digeo.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found] ` <20020919.221513.28808421.taka@valinux.co.jp.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
     [not found]   ` <3D8A36A5.846D806@digeo.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-09-20  1:00     ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-20  1:09       ` Andrew Morton
2002-09-20  1:23         ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-20  1:27           ` David S. Miller
2002-09-20  2:06             ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-20  2:01               ` David S. Miller
2002-09-20  2:28                 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-20  2:20                   ` David S. Miller
2002-09-20  2:35                     ` Andi Kleen
2002-10-16 14:04 Lever, Charles

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200210221616.23282.habanero@us.ibm.com \
    --to=habanero@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=davem@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@cse.unsw.edu.au \
    --cc=nfs@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=taka@valinux.co.jp \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®