Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!olive!navmat.navy.gov.au!posgate!posgate.apana.org.au!posgate.acis.com.au!news.act.apana.org.au!warrane.connect.com.au!news.syd.connect.com.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news.kei.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!library.ucla.edu!galaxy.ucr.edu!corsa!grif From: grif@corsa.ucr.edu (Michael Griffith) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.benchmarks,comp.protocols.nfs Subject: NFS performance: What am I doing wrong with FreeBSD? Followup-To: poster Date: 9 Feb 1996 18:54:44 GMT Organization: UC Riverside, Dept. of Computer Science Lines: 67 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <4fg59k$fmp@galaxy.ucr.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.ucr.edu Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:13618 comp.os.linux.development.system:17119 comp.benchmarks:11291 comp.protocols.nfs:13371 I've heard from "far and wide" about how studly FreeBSD's NFS performance is. Unfortunately, I have not been able to reproduce it. Any hints? Here are the benchmarks that I ran. In nearly every case, the Linux box (with twice the RAM, but a sorry ethernet card, and some load) performed better than FreeBSD. I realize the tests aren't fair because the hardware and load varies, but I still feel that I may be doing something else wrong with FreeBSD. I am not trying to detract from FreeBSD, I just want to know how to make it be a fast NFS server. Right now, it comes in third. BTW, the Indy with its `cheating' technique of doing async NFS performs very,very well. corsa,highload razo,noload hill,lowload squire,highload Sun SS1000 P5-120 P5-120 SGI Indy SunOS 5.5 FreeBSD-2.1 Linux-1.3.55 IRIX 5.3 256M RAM 32M RAM 64M RAM 32M RAM lance 3c509 NE2000 ? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- nfsstone(+) 153 162 200 226 write sml (-) 0.80 0.35 0.18 0.16 write med (-) 2.0 1.2 0.9 0.7 write lrg (-) 31 16 12 8 zcat+tar (-) 12 8 4 4 compile (-) 357 391 87 77 compile -j8 (-) 192 373 51 51 nfsbench(user+system): mkdir (-) 0.11+0.02 0.11+0.00 0.12+0.00 0.11+0.00 rmdir (-) 0.00+0.01 0.00+0.00 0.01+0.00 0.00+0.01 creat (-) 0.10+0.54 0.20+0.52 0.10+0.55 0.19+0.24 write (-) 0.16+1.41 0.15+1.21 0.16+1.20 0.15+1.23 read (-) 0.16+0.74 0.17+0.72 0.20+0.82 0.17+0.77 mkdir rec (-) 0.24+0.34 0.14+0.21 0.13+0.22 0.14+0.15 lookup rec (-) 0.21+0.66 0.25+0.49 0.16+0.60 0.21+0.76 rmdir rec (-) 0.56+1.03 0.58+0.70 0.71+0.87 0.74+1.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (+) = bigger is better (-) = smaller is better Client is: predator,noload \ P5-120 \ My test client is Linux because Linux-1.3.59 > 75% of our client stations are. 32M RAM / Your results may vary. NE2000 / rsize=8192 / wsize=8192 / I realize that LADDIS/SFS may be the better way to go, but don't have it yet. The nfsstone/nfsbench numbers may not be too useful, but I feel that the natural benchmarks of zcat+tar, compile, and compile with make -j8 (to build GNU cpio-2.4.2) are quite representative of the type of work my users do. I would appreciate any comments and pointers to FREE benchmarks. -- Michael A. Griffith (grif@cs.ucr.edu) | http://www.cs.ucr.edu/~grif/ Department of Computer Science | PGP public key available. University of California, Riverside | "My freedom of speech implies (909) 787-3803 | your freedom to be offended."