From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize readahead size
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:19:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1267539563.3099.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100302031021.GA14267@localhost>
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:10 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Here is one more test on a big ext4 disk file:
>
> 16k 39.7 MB/s
> 32k 54.3 MB/s
> 64k 63.6 MB/s
> 128k 72.6 MB/s
> 256k 71.7 MB/s
> rsize ==> 512k 71.7 MB/s
> 1024k 72.2 MB/s
> 2048k 71.0 MB/s
> 4096k 73.0 MB/s
> 8192k 74.3 MB/s
> 16384k 74.5 MB/s
>
> It shows that >=128k client side readahead is enough for single disk
> case :) As for RAID configurations, I guess big server side readahead
> should be enough.
There are lots of people who would like to use NFS on their company WAN,
where you typically have high bandwidths (up to 10GigE), but often a
high latency too (due to geographical dispersion).
My ping latency from here to a typical server in NetApp's Bangalore
office is ~ 312ms. I read your test results with 10ms delays, but have
you tested with higher than that?
Cheers
Trond
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize readahead size
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:19:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1267539563.3099.43.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100302031021.GA14267@localhost>
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:10 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Here is one more test on a big ext4 disk file:
>
> 16k 39.7 MB/s
> 32k 54.3 MB/s
> 64k 63.6 MB/s
> 128k 72.6 MB/s
> 256k 71.7 MB/s
> rsize ==> 512k 71.7 MB/s
> 1024k 72.2 MB/s
> 2048k 71.0 MB/s
> 4096k 73.0 MB/s
> 8192k 74.3 MB/s
> 16384k 74.5 MB/s
>
> It shows that >=128k client side readahead is enough for single disk
> case :) As for RAID configurations, I guess big server side readahead
> should be enough.
There are lots of people who would like to use NFS on their company WAN,
where you typically have high bandwidths (up to 10GigE), but often a
high latency too (due to geographical dispersion).
My ping latency from here to a typical server in NetApp's Bangalore
office is ~ 312ms. I read your test results with 10ms delays, but have
you tested with higher than that?
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-03-02 14:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-24 2:41 [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 2:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 3:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 3:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:22 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 6:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 6:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 7:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 7:39 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-26 7:49 ` [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize " Wu Fengguang
2010-02-26 7:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 3:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 3:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 14:19 ` Trond Myklebust [this message]
2010-03-02 14:19 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 17:33 ` John Stoffel
2010-03-02 17:33 ` John Stoffel
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 18:42 ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-03 3:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-03 3:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-04-14 21:22 ` Dean Hildebrand
2010-04-14 21:22 ` Dean Hildebrand
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-02 20:14 ` Bret Towe
2010-03-03 1:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-03 1:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 11:18 ` [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize " Akshat Aranya
2010-02-24 11:18 ` Akshat Aranya
2010-02-24 11:18 ` Akshat Aranya
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-25 12:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 4:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:33 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 4:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24 5:24 ` Dave Chinner
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=1267539563.3099.43.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=trond.myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.