From: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
To: Daniel Pocock <daniel@pocock.com.au>
Cc: "Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>,
"linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: extremely slow nfs when sync enabled
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:45:59 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120508124559.GA15448@fieldses.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FA90C63.7000505@pocock.com.au>
On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 12:06:59PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
>
> On 07/05/12 17:18, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > How many file creates per second?
> >
>
> I ran:
> nfsstat -s -o all -l -Z5
> and during the test (unpacking the tarball), I see numbers like these
> every 5 seconds for about 2 minutes:
>
> nfs v3 server total: 319
> ------------- ------------- --------
> nfs v3 server getattr: 1
> nfs v3 server setattr: 126
> nfs v3 server access: 6
> nfs v3 server write: 61
> nfs v3 server create: 61
> nfs v3 server mkdir: 3
> nfs v3 server commit: 61
OK, so it's probably creating about 60 new files, each requiring a
create, write, commit, and two setattrs?
Each of those operations is synchronous, so probably has to wait for at
least one disk seek. About 300 such operations every 5 seconds is about
60 per second, or about 16ms each. That doesn't sound so far off.
(I wonder why it needs two setattrs?)
> I decided to expand the scope of my testing too, I want to rule out the
> possibility that my HP Microserver with onboard SATA is the culprit. I
> set up two other NFS servers (all Debian 6, kernel 2.6.38):
>
> HP Z800 Xeon workstation
> Intel Corporation 82801 SATA RAID Controller (operating as AHCI)
> VB0250EAVER (250GB 7200rpm)
>
> Lenovo Thinkpad X220
> Intel Corporation Cougar Point 6 port SATA AHCI Controller (rev 04)
> SSDSA2BW160G3L (160GB SSD)
>
> Both the Z800 and X220 run as NFSv3 servers
> Each one has a fresh 10GB logical volume formatted ext4,
> mount options: barrier=1,data=ordered
> write cache (hdparm -W 1): enabled
>
> Results:
> NFS client: X220
> NFS server: Z800 (regular disk)
> iostat reports about 1,000kbytes/sec when unpacking the tarball
> This is just as slow as the original NFS server
Again, reporting kbytes/second alone isn't useful--data throughput isn't
interesting for a workload like unpacking a tarball with a lot of small
files. The limiting factor is the synchronous operations.
> NFS client: Z800
> NFS server: X220 (SSD disk)
> iostat reports about 22,000kbytes/sec when unpacking the tarball
>
> It seems that buying a pair of SSDs for my HP MicroServer will let me
> use NFS `sync' and enjoy healthy performance - 20x faster.
And an SSD has much lower write latency, so this isn't surprising.
> However, is there really no other way to get more speed out of NFS when
> using the `sync' option?
I've heard reports of people being able to get better performance on
this kind of workload by using an external journal on an SSD.
(Last I tried this--with a machine at home, using (if I remember
correctly) ext4 on software raid with the journal on an intel x25-m, I
wasn't able to get any improvement. I didn't try to figure out why.)
--b.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-08 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-06 3:00 extremely slow nfs when sync enabled Daniel Pocock
2012-05-06 18:23 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-05-06 21:23 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-06 21:49 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-05-06 22:12 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-06 22:12 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-06 22:42 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-05-07 9:19 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-07 13:59 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-07 17:18 ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-05-08 12:06 ` Daniel Pocock
2012-05-08 12:45 ` J. Bruce Fields [this message]
2012-05-08 13:29 ` Myklebust, Trond
2012-05-08 13:43 ` Daniel Pocock
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-05-06 9:26 Daniel Pocock
2012-05-06 11:03 ` Daniel Pocock
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=20120508124559.GA15448@fieldses.org \
--to=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com \
--cc=daniel@pocock.com.au \
--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).