Using SuSE 9.2 with kernel 2.6.8-25.5, over a gigabit connection (tried both thru a Netgear switch and a crossover cable with no switch) to a second system configured identically, NFS appears to be incredibly slow -I was seeing MUCH faster transfers on the same hardware with SuSE 9.1. Did SuSE muck with NFS? If so, how do I undo it? Mike- -- If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs... You may have a great career as a network administrator ahead! -- Please note - Due to the intense volume of spam, we have installed site-wide spam filters at catherders.com. If email from you bounces, try non-HTML, non-encoded, non-attachments,
On Friday 17 December 2004 12:02 pm, Michael W Cocke wrote:
Using SuSE 9.2 with kernel 2.6.8-25.5, over a gigabit connection (tried both thru a Netgear switch and a crossover cable with no switch) to a second system configured identically, NFS appears to be incredibly slow -I was seeing MUCH faster transfers on the same hardware with SuSE 9.1. Did SuSE muck with NFS? If so, how do I undo it?
Are you copying large files? Are you mounting with 'sync' or 'async'? The 'sync' option *really* slows NFS down. It's a must if you're mounting homedirs and users are keeping files open in applications. If you're just copying files, it's safe to use 'async', which will greatly improve the speed. You may also want to look into tuning your network card configurations. -- James Oakley Engineering - SolutionInc Ltd. joakley@solutioninc.com http://www.solutioninc.com
On Friday 17 December 2004 11:38 am, James Oakley wrote:
The 'sync' option *really* slows NFS down. It's a must if you're mounting homedirs and users are keeping files open in applications.
I have diskless workstations that boot ltsp and access an application that plays movies. With SuSE 8.2 & 9.0, the loading of the application was relativelely quick. With 9.1 and 9.2 it takes a VERY noticeable amount of time to load the application. Once everything is loaded, they both seem to run the same speed. Could this be why for me also? Could you elaborate a little more on the pro's and con's of sync vs. async. I am limited to about 13 - 14 workstations playing the same video file at the same time on the servers nfs share before bandwidth becomes an issue. I tried streaming the video instead using videolanclient, but the workstations didn't seem to be powerfull enough to decode both the steam and the video at the same time. B-)
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 19:52 pm, Brad Bourn wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 11:38 am, James Oakley wrote:
The 'sync' option *really* slows NFS down. It's a must if you're mounting homedirs and users are keeping files open in applications.
I have diskless workstations that boot ltsp and access an application that plays movies. With SuSE 8.2 & 9.0, the loading of the application was relativelely quick. With 9.1 and 9.2 it takes a VERY noticeable amount of time to load the application. Once everything is loaded, they both seem to run the same speed. Could this be why for me also?
Could you elaborate a little more on the pro's and con's of sync vs. async.
This is really only important for opening files for writing. Basically, with sync, the server is forced to complete a file operation before returning a result to the client. With async, the server simply acknowledges the operation and caches it to commit in its own time. For reading a file this is not a particular issue, since the file is not changing. When it comes to writing OTOH, sync means that an update is written to the disk immediately, whereas async means it's held back in cache until the server can be bothered to deal with it.
I am limited to about 13 - 14 workstations playing the same video file at the same time on the servers nfs share before bandwidth becomes an issue.
Have you tried adjusting the rsize and wsize options on the nfs mount? I get best performance with each set at 16384. Dylan
I tried streaming the video instead using videolanclient, but the workstations didn't seem to be powerfull enough to decode both the steam and the video at the same time.
B-)
-- "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet
Thank you for the info.... I'll give those settings a try. B-) On Friday 17 December 2004 01:18 pm, Dylan wrote:
On Friday 17 Dec 2004 19:52 pm, Brad Bourn wrote:
On Friday 17 December 2004 11:38 am, James Oakley wrote:
The 'sync' option *really* slows NFS down. It's a must if you're mounting homedirs and users are keeping files open in applications.
I have diskless workstations that boot ltsp and access an application that plays movies. With SuSE 8.2 & 9.0, the loading of the application was relativelely quick. With 9.1 and 9.2 it takes a VERY noticeable amount of time to load the application. Once everything is loaded, they both seem to run the same speed. Could this be why for me also?
Could you elaborate a little more on the pro's and con's of sync vs. async.
This is really only important for opening files for writing. Basically, with sync, the server is forced to complete a file operation before returning a result to the client. With async, the server simply acknowledges the operation and caches it to commit in its own time. For reading a file this is not a particular issue, since the file is not changing. When it comes to writing OTOH, sync means that an update is written to the disk immediately, whereas async means it's held back in cache until the server can be bothered to deal with it.
I am limited to about 13 - 14 workstations playing the same video file at the same time on the servers nfs share before bandwidth becomes an issue.
Have you tried adjusting the rsize and wsize options on the nfs mount? I get best performance with each set at 16384.
Dylan
I tried streaming the video instead using videolanclient, but the workstations didn't seem to be powerfull enough to decode both the steam and the video at the same time.
B-)
-- "I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" -Dark Helmet
participants (4)
-
Brad Bourn -
Dylan -
James Oakley -
Michael W Cocke