Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!venus.sun.com!male.EBay.Sun.COM!engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM!peyto!thurlow From: thurlow@peyto.eng.sun.com (Robert Thurlow) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix Subject: Re: ISP hardware/software choices (performance comparison) Date: 19 Jan 1996 08:17:30 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Computer Corporation Lines: 75 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <4dnk2q$b72@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> References: <4cmopu$d35@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <4dbun0$j2f@park.uvsc.edu> <4de3ml$naq@engnews2.Eng.Sun.COM> <4dgpti$rnv@park.uvsc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: peyto.eng.sun.com Cc: Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:2039 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:2200 comp.unix.solaris:57758 comp.unix.aix:69135 In article <4dgpti$rnv@park.uvsc.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> wrote: >thurlow@peyto.eng.sun.com (Robert Thurlow) wrote: >If this is true (it is disabled on the machine I can get access >to, and I rememebr specifically disabling it -- it may have been >enables by one of three other people), then I will retract my >reliability claim made on the basis of assuming server cacheing. I think it's time to do that, since to my knowledge, only SGI has ever shipped systems whose NFS servers had async writes enabled by default. Sun would be the last vendor to do it (and I don't consider that entirely a good thing, just a fact). >I'll assume that it's true, since my main exposure to SVR4 is >by way of USL, and I have intentionally avoided Solaris after >my investigation of it at the 2.3 level. If you won't look at releases after 2.3, shouldn't you be recusing yourself from discussions of the merits of Solaris? >Stipulating this, however, I once again request proof that the >5.x implementation is higher performance than the 4.x, and >further that any performance difference is not simply the result >of the 4.x driver's misue of the Lance buffers, as described in >the Solaris 1.x->2.x upgrade/release notes. Same results; see detail in my other article. The "further" part is neither mine to comment on nor relevant, because these are two commercial releases, not hacker projects. SS 1, SunOS 4.1.3_U1 wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 63.13 seconds (166073 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 44.58 seconds (235203 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 43.77 seconds (239528 bytes/sec) SS 1, SunOS 5.5, NFS V2 wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 34.41 seconds (304652 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 35.96 seconds (291524 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 29.42 seconds (356385 bytes/sec) SS 1, SunOS 5.5, NFS V3 wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 28.14 seconds (372500 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 27.55 seconds (380586 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 22.94 seconds (457083 bytes/sec) SS 20, SunOS 5.5, NFS V3 wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 12.43 seconds (843453 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 12.6 seconds (869132 bytes/sec) wrote 1048576 byte file 10 times in 12.10 seconds (866174 bytes/sec) >I find anything other than a marginal performance claim to be >difficult to support without resorting to server caching or >some other "speedup" technique which requires violation of >the protocol spec (like the 4.x and 5.x client caching). Then your knowledge of NFS implementation is lacking. There's still work to do on performance. Rob T -- Rob Thurlow, thurlow@eng.sun.com There was something fishy about the butler. I think he was a Pisces, probably working for scale. -- Nick Danger, Third Eye