From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from woodlands.midnighthax.com ([93.89.81.115]:44539 "EHLO woodlands.midnighthax.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755252Ab2LRUJS (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 15:09:18 -0500 Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:42:51 +0000 From: Keith Edmunds To: "J. Bruce Fields" Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS access slow Message-ID: <20121218194251.5bf674ff@ws.the.cage> In-Reply-To: <20121218185006.GA14716@fieldses.org> References: <20121218155248.49dfa1fd@kae.tiger-computing.wbp> <20121218185006.GA14716@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: > What are your disks? They are Enterprise Nearline 6Gb/s SAS drives in an Infortrend disk array. > How exactly are you getting those numbers? > (Literally, step-by-step, what commands are you running?) Using postmark: pm> set location /mnt/tmp pm> set size 10000 10000000 pm> run The only difference is the 'set location' line, which points to either the NFS mountpoint or the local mountpoint. A test using dd ("dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/tmp bs=1M count=8192") gave a difference of about five times faster for direct access versus access via NFS. > What kernel version? 3.2 > Note loopback-mounts (client and server on same machine) aren't really > fully supported. OK, I wasn't aware of that. We were only testing that way to try to eliminate switches, cables, etc. I've just run a test from another server, both connected via 10G links, and I'm getting a read speed of just under 20BM/s and a write speed of 52MB/s.