Re: 2.4 vs. 2.6 nfs client performance

[Jason Holmes <jholmes@psu.edu>]

Jason Holmes wrote:
> 
> Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >
> > Any hints on how I can reproduce your results?
> 
> Unfortunately Gaussian's licensing would prohibit me from passing it
> along to reproduce this.  I'll try to reproduce this with another
> program this morning and get back to you.

OK, I haven't found any other program that behaves similar to Gaussian
on this, but I did do a few more runs with 2.6.0-test9-bk17 vs 2.4.22,
one set with nfs_debug on and one set with rpc_debug on.  I haven't
analyzed the files in depth (and doing so would really be beyond me at
this point), but on a "dumb" level, the nfs files are of similar length
in terms of lines, but the RPC file for 2.6.0-test9-bk17 is much larger:

[root@fs4 log]# wc -l kern.*
  16236 kern.nfs-2.4.22
  17188 kern.nfs-2.6.0-test9-bk17
  20565 kern.rpc-2.4.22
  32684 kern.rpc-2.6.0-test9-bk17

Note that there is probably some small amount of noise in these files,
but 98% of it should be from the Gaussian runs.  I put them up at:

  http://magicbus.cac.psu.edu/nfs

if you want to look at them.  One small observation is that 2.4.22
reaches much larger values of cwnd than test9-bk17, resulting in a lot
fewer calls to functions such as xprt_cwnd_limited (1861 vs. 2715). 
Whether or not this means anything, I don't know.

Trond, if none of this helps and you really want to debug this, I can
probably give you access to two machines to do so.

Thanks,

--
Jason Holmes


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by: ApacheCon 2003,
16-19 November in Las Vegas. Learn firsthand the latest
developments in Apache, PHP, Perl, XML, Java, MySQL,
WebDAV, and more! http://www.apachecon.com/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs