From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HK_RANDOM_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09BC4CA9EC0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:50:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AFE7208C0 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 14:50:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=desy.de header.i=@desy.de header.b="JrWhvB0a" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390263AbfJ1Oum (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:50:42 -0400 Received: from smtp-o-1.desy.de ([131.169.56.154]:56720 "EHLO smtp-o-1.desy.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727982AbfJ1Oum (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:50:42 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 345 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:50:40 EDT Received: from smtp-buf-1.desy.de (smtp-buf-1.desy.de [131.169.56.164]) by smtp-o-1.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8DA2E0115 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:44:53 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp-o-1.desy.de D8DA2E0115 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=desy.de; s=default; t=1572273893; bh=m/RBMG3PbSrFnbjq3ABvZVUxVmq9UAPGCKiscaSbh+A=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From; b=JrWhvB0aNyDHbtUeuwpNkqIYV3+qY7MrI/6HFMHlkufuIlTe4/fXlLpfAmXQyAZD2 NvB3vEVAoSZ3hTFxOXC30ugklfxbIv5q0jLSZ8Qo/3K286CRmk3AEKAP10315X/N2B rKHeqBj0ruMIDnoOTFrHz/Krr/3+zyDilJVMN1pE= Received: from smtp-m-1.desy.de (smtp-m-1.desy.de [131.169.56.129]) by smtp-buf-1.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4DBE12020F; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:44:53 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at desy.de Received: from z-mbx-2.desy.de (z-mbx-2.desy.de [131.169.55.140]) by smtp-intra-2.desy.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF94B10003A; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:44:53 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:44:53 +0100 (CET) From: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" To: Naruto Nguyen Cc: linux-nfs Message-ID: <1589957450.8701645.1572273893609.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: NFS latency and throughput minimum requirement MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3847 (ZimbraWebClient - FF70 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3847) Thread-Topic: NFS latency and throughput minimum requirement Thread-Index: 9IKheuJ+WOm78oEoAM66FiGClybYUA== Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Hi Naruto, NFS performance is a function with multiple variables: - CPU - kernel - TCP - Networks - Disk subsystem - File system and every component has it's own set of knobs to turn... I will inter the question: What is expected latency and throughput of your applications? Can you identify the bottlenecks? At the best try to reproduce the load with application itself or fio and then go one-by-one and tweak the performance. Regards, Tigran. ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Naruto Nguyen" > To: "linux-nfs" > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 6:25:24 AM > Subject: NFS latency and throughput minimum requirement > Hi everyone, > > Could you please advice me how to identify the minimum NFS requirement > of latency and throughput on a specific system? I have some test cases > to test performance of NFS and tune the system to have better NFS > performance but I do not know how good or bad with my > measurement/result. > > Thanks, > Brs, > Naruto