linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
Cc: John Stoffel <john@stoffel.org>,
	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: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 11:27:24 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100303032724.GA9979@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1267555339.3099.127.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:42:19AM +0800, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:33 -0500, John Stoffel wrote: 
> > >>>>> "Trond" == Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> writes:
> > 
> > Trond> 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.
> > 
> > Trond> There are lots of people who would like to use NFS on their
> > Trond> company WAN, where you typically have high bandwidths (up to
> > Trond> 10GigE), but often a high latency too (due to geographical
> > Trond> dispersion).  My ping latency from here to a typical server in
> > Trond> NetApp's Bangalore office is ~ 312ms. I read your test results
> > Trond> with 10ms delays, but have you tested with higher than that?
> > 
> > If you have that high a latency, the low level TCP protocol is going
> > to kill your performance before you get to the NFS level.  You really
> > need to open up the TCP window size at that point.  And it only gets
> > worse as the bandwidth goes up too.  
> 
> Yes. You need to open the TCP window in addition to reading ahead
> aggressively.

I only get ~10MB/s throughput with following settings.

# huge NFS ra size
echo 89512 > /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/0:15/read_ahead_kb        

# on both sides
/sbin/tc qdisc add dev eth0 root netem delay 200ms              

net.core.rmem_max = 873800000
net.core.wmem_max = 655360000
net.ipv4.tcp_rmem = 8192 87380000 873800000
net.ipv4.tcp_wmem = 4096 65536000 655360000

Did I miss something?

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-03-03  3:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ 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  3:29 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24  4:18   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24  5:22     ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24  6:12       ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24  7:39         ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-26  7:49           ` [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize " Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02  3:10             ` Wu Fengguang
2010-03-02 14:19               ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-02 17:33                 ` John Stoffel
2010-03-02 18:42                   ` Trond Myklebust
2010-03-03  3:27                     ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2010-04-14 21:22                       ` Dean Hildebrand
2010-03-02 20:14               ` Bret Towe
2010-03-03  1:43                 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24 11:18       ` [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize " Akshat Aranya
2010-02-25 12:37         ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24  4:24   ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-24  4:33     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-02-24  4:43     ` Wu Fengguang
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=20100303032724.GA9979@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=john@stoffel.org \
    --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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).