From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Patrice Seyed" Subject: RE: ReasmFails increases / NFS performance on Linux Cluster Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 17:52:13 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <003701c48312$1f61a740$6701a8c0@psyche1> References: <20040814092339.GB28329@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: "'Patrice Seyed'" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BwSvL-0002r9-Sm for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:52:19 -0700 Received: from acsn03.bu.edu ([128.197.159.63]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BwSvL-0002Dw-Dk for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:52:19 -0700 To: In-Reply-To: <20040814092339.GB28329@suse.de> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Thanks Olaf, when I tried nfs over tcp on the clients the ReasmFails = value increased much significantly slower. At this time of testing the value = is not increasing at all. Still, slowness on logging in (or running ls on that mount) continues, = which is not good since many users will be logging into the headnode during production. In addition, I have enabled jumbo packets on the cisco, and set all = nodes on the cluster network to mtu 9000. Also I have set read and write size to = 32k as a document suggested with tcp and mtu at 9000 for better thoroughput. Still I see the slowness when logging in. I am not sure if there is now any performance improvement as I am not currently using any intelligent benchmark or mbit/sec analysis. Any recommendation on doing these measurements and benchmarking is = appreciated greatly. Also I think I should consider the setup and the feasibility of putting this type of load on this cluster (I/O intensive usually calls = for pvfs or multiple nfs servers, or both). E.g. one of my tests uses dd to write 256mb files to nfs from 28 nodes at once (all going to the storage node), and also running 2 jobs from each node (134 total node) that use = dd to write 4MB files and also run nbench. I.e. Should an nfs server be = able to handle this amount of load anyway? Like I said I'm now running 64 nfs daemons, and the th line looks like = this now: th 64 2380739 168.120 128.860 68.350 261.730 184.990 121.680 145.930 = 122.090 178.390 1749.090 Thanks Olaf for your suggestions on tcp and jumbo packets. Now I'm = wondering what I can use to determine if actually speed performance was improved, = and if the "bottleneck" I'm seeing now should be expected for my setup. Any comments, further suggestions, appreciated. Cheers, -Patrice -----Original Message----- From: Olaf Kirch [mailto:okir@suse.de]=20 Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:24 AM To: Patrice Seyed Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [NFS] ReasmFails increases / NFS performance on Linux = Cluster On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 03:46:44AM -0400, Patrice Seyed wrote: > I welcome any suggestions or recommendations. Try using NFS over TCP, or, if all your NICs support it, use jumbograms to avoid fragmentation. Olaf --=20 Olaf Kirch | The Hardware Gods hate me. okir@suse.de | ---------------+=20 ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by Shop4tech.com-Lowest price on Blank Media 100pk Sonic DVD-R 4x for only $29 -100pk Sonic DVD+R for only $33 Save 50% off Retail on Ink & Toner - Free Shipping and Free Gift. http://www.shop4tech.com/z/Inkjet_Cartridges/9_108_r285 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs