linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dean <seattleplus@gmail.com>
To: "J.Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Cc: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>,
	Olga Kornievskaia <aglo@citi.umich.edu>,
	NFS <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Is tcp autotuning really what NFS wants?
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:33:09 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51DD9AD5.1030508@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130710022735.GI8281@fieldses.org>

 > This could significantly limit the amount of parallelism that can be 
achieved for a single TCP connection (and given that the
 > Linux client strongly prefers a single connection now, this could 
become more of an issue).

I understand the simplicity in using a single tcp connection, but 
performance-wise it is definitely not the way to go on WAN links. When 
even a miniscule amount of packet loss is added to the link (<0.001% 
packet loss), the tcp buffer collapses and performance drops 
significantly (especially on 10GigE WAN links).  I think new TCP 
algorithms could help the problem somewhat, but nothing available today 
makes much of a difference vs. cubic.

Using multiple tcp connections allows better saturation of the link, 
since when packet loss occurs on a stream, the other streams can fill 
the void.  Today, the only solution is to scale up the number of 
physical clients, which has high coordination overhead, or use a wan 
accelerator such as Bitspeed or Riverbed (which comes with its own 
issues such as extra hardware, cost, etc).


> It does make a difference on high bandwidth-product networks (something
> people have also hit).  I'd rather not regress there and also would
> rather not require manual tuning for something we should be able to get
> right automatically.'

Previous to this patch, the tcp buffer was fixed to such a small size 
(especially for writes) that the idea of parallelism was moot anyways.  
Whatever the tcp buffer negotiates to now is definitely bigger than was 
what there before hand, which I think is brought out by the fact that no 
performance regression was found.

Regressing back to the old way is a death nail to any system with a 
delay of >1ms or a bandwidth of >1GigE, so I definitely hope we never go 
there.  Of course, now that autoscaling allows the tcp buffer to grow to 
reasonable values to achieve good performance for 10+GigE and WAN links, 
if we can improve the parallelism/stability even further, that would be 
great.
Dean

  parent reply	other threads:[~2013-07-10 17:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20130710092255.0240a36d@notabene.brown>
2013-07-10  2:27 ` Is tcp autotuning really what NFS wants? J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-10  4:32   ` NeilBrown
2013-07-10 19:07     ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-15  4:32       ` NeilBrown
2013-07-16  1:58         ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-16  4:00           ` NeilBrown
2013-07-16 14:24             ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-18  0:03               ` Ben Myers
2013-07-24 21:07                 ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-25  1:30                   ` [PATCH] NFSD/sunrpc: avoid deadlock on TCP connection due to memory pressure NeilBrown
2013-07-25 12:35                     ` Jim Rees
2013-07-25 20:18                     ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-25 20:33                       ` NeilBrown
2013-07-26 14:19                         ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-30  2:48                           ` NeilBrown
2013-08-01  2:49                             ` J.Bruce Fields
2013-07-10 17:33   ` Dean [this message]
2013-07-10 17:39     ` Is tcp autotuning really what NFS wants? Ben Greear
2013-07-15  4:35       ` NeilBrown
2013-07-15 23:32         ` Ben Greear
2013-07-16  4:46           ` NeilBrown
2013-07-10 19:59     ` Michael Richardson
2013-07-15  1:26   ` Jim Rees
2013-07-15  5:02     ` NeilBrown
2013-07-15 11:57       ` Jim Rees
2013-07-15 13:42   ` Jim Rees
2013-07-16  1:10     ` NeilBrown

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=51DD9AD5.1030508@gmail.com \
    --to=seattleplus@gmail.com \
    --cc=aglo@citi.umich.edu \
    --cc=bfields@citi.umich.edu \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=neilb@suse.de \
    /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).