Re: nfs performance problem

[Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 01:22:25PM -0700, Matt Heaton wrote:
> each NFS server.  So even though our throughput of only 1.5 MB isn't high.
> The number of files per second is
> actually quite high, and causes things to slow down because of seek time
> issues.  PLEASE GIVE US CACHEFS SOMEONE??

How is cachefs going to help?  The kernel is already trying to cache data 
as much as possible.  Once you're trying to serve more data than you have 
RAM, this are naturally going to degreate quite significantly as the system 
becomes seek bound.

> Does anyone have experience with IDE Raid arrays that get over 250 tps in
> iostat that work fine?  I would
> be VERY VERY VERY interested to find out.

Use raid1+0 and you'll be much happier, as read requests will be balanced 
over multiple drives (mirroring means the same data can be read from all 
of the mirrors).  Additionally, you'll have much lower CPU utilization 
and writes won't cause all disks in the array to seek for strip updates.  
Read the archives for the past couple of weeks for another example of the 
performance increase when going from raid5 to raid1+0.

		-ben


-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm 
Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size!
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs