nfs performance, linux vs freebsd vs solaris

nfs performance, linux vs freebsd vs solaris

Post by Ed Hudso » Thu, 30 Apr 1998 04:00:00



    nfs write speed comparison, 100basetx, linux to
    freebsd/solaris, freebsd to solaris/freebsd,
    solaris to freebsd. (missing * to linux,
    solaris/solaris).

    basic conclusions: freebsd nfs performance ~= solaris
        performance.  linux performance 10x worse.

    (i'd appreciate recomendations on fixing the linux
    performance - one must internetwork).  i'd also be
    interested in other peoples nfs results.

            -elh

client:         twister. (red had linux 5, p2/233)
command:        time cat /boot/vmlinuz-2.0.32*4 > t.u   (1785124)

server:                                         write speed
           rsize/wsize                          (mbyte/sec)
hemlock v3 1024/1024:   1:27.39                 0.02            freebsd
2.2.6
xy      v3 1024/1024:   0:45.53                 0.04            freebsd
3.0-971225
stealth v3 1024/1024:   0:19.42                 0.09            solaris
2.5.5
hemlock v3 8192/8192:   0:14.00                 0.13
xy      v3 8192/8192:   0:08.50                 0.21
stealth v3 8192/8192:   0:05.81                 0.31

client:         xy.    (freebsd 3.0-971225-SNAP, ppro-150)
command:        time cat /kernel*8 > t.u                (11017089)

server:                                         write speed
                                                (mbyte/sec)
hemlock v3 1024/1024:   0:08.35                 1.32
hestia  v3 1024/1024:   0:08.72                 1.26
stealth v3 1024/1024:   0:05.04                 2.19
hemlock v3 8192/8192:   0:03.61                 3.05
hestia  v3 8192/8192:   0:03.48                 3.17
stealth v3 8192/8192:   0:01.73                 6.37

client:         stealth. (ultrasparc 1 150mhz, solaris 2.5.5)
command:        time cat /kernel/genunix*16 > t.u       (14196544)

server:                                         write speed
                                                (mbyte/sec)
hemlock v3 1024/1024:   0:05                    2.84
hestia  v3 1024/1024:   0:06                    2.37        freebsd
3.0-971225
hemlock v3 8192/8192:   0:03                    4.73
hestia  v3 8192/8192:   0:04                    3.55

 
 
 

nfs performance, linux vs freebsd vs solaris

Post by stephen farrel » Fri, 01 May 1998 04:00:00



>     nfs write speed comparison, 100basetx, linux to
>     freebsd/solaris, freebsd to solaris/freebsd,
>     solaris to freebsd. (missing * to linux,
>     solaris/solaris).

>     basic conclusions: freebsd nfs performance ~= solaris
>         performance.  linux performance 10x worse.

>     (i'd appreciate recomendations on fixing the linux
>     performance - one must internetwork).  i'd also be
>     interested in other peoples nfs results.

Linux nfs in < v2.1 is just very slow.  The problem is that it's not
v3 nfs.  v3 nfs supports much more efficient writes... the linux box
is waiting for a reply that can only be made after the data is
committed to disk for every block written.  You'll also notice the
heads chattering away like mad on the server.  olaf kirch greatly
improved the nfs implementation for linux 2.1, so it *will* get
better.

In the meantime, you should be able to get somewhat better performance
by increasing the block size for read and write--i think 8192 is
recommended.  I don't have a linux box to check, but I think you want
mount options like rsize=8192,wsize=8192...

--sf

 
 
 

nfs performance, linux vs freebsd vs solaris

Post by Tom Well » Fri, 01 May 1998 04:00:00




> >     basic conclusions: freebsd nfs performance ~= solaris
> >         performance.  linux performance 10x worse.

> >     (i'd appreciate recomendations on fixing the linux
> >     performance - one must internetwork).  i'd also be
> >     interested in other peoples nfs results.

> Linux nfs in < v2.1 is just very slow.  The problem is that it's not
> v3 nfs.  v3 nfs supports much more efficient writes... the linux box
> is waiting for a reply that can only be made after the data is
> committed to disk for every block written.  You'll also notice the
> heads chattering away like mad on the server.  olaf kirch greatly
> improved the nfs implementation for linux 2.1, so it *will* get
> better.

> In the meantime, you should be able to get somewhat better performance
> by increasing the block size for read and write--i think 8192 is
> recommended.  I don't have a linux box to check, but I think you want
> mount options like rsize=8192,wsize=8192...

> --sf

Yes, this is correct.  The man page for mount even suggests this:

Mount options for nfs

        ...

       Especially useful options include

       rsize=8192,wsize=8192
              This will make your nfs connection much faster than
              with the default buffer size of 1024.

Changing the (r|w)size improved performance noticeably, but probably
stilll
quite slow.  Haven't tried the implementation in the 2.1 kernels though.

tom

 
 
 

1. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks

        Every machine and operating system has got its useful
purpose...

        I see no point in argueing with people which OS is better, and
which is worse, and what will survive and what wont...

        The bottom line is obviously the best OS is the one that make
the end user most productive.    Ive used quite a variety of software
from intel, ibm, MS, sun, GNU, DEC/compaq, etc,   and everything OS
has got its UPz and DOWnz, so depending on what you want to do with it
yer machine, probably determines what OS you run.

        So lets cut to the chase -  OS bashing is a waste of time,
and most of the time I'd say the person putting it down just hasn't
seen that particular OS's potential,  or should I say speciality....

      Hell,  Plan 9 has even got some interesting features.. <snicker>

       And all PC users know,  that no matter what use on a day to day
basis on the PC, that one day you will need to boot good ole ancient
DOS to do something...

2. glibc2.0.7 causes problem on WZCE

3. SunOS 5.6 vs Solaris 2.6 vs Solaris 7 vs Solaris 8

4. Linux on IBM H50

5. FreeBSD vs Linux. TCP and NFS performance?

6. SunPCI 3.2.2 and Blade 100

7. FPU performance of Pentium vs. K6 vs. Ppro vs. PII

8. Help configuring Plug N Pray devices

9. Linux vs FreeBSD vs Solaris for x86 ?

10. Linux vs FreeBSD vs Solaris Unix for x86

11. Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2

12. Perfomance: tar vs ftp vs rsync vs cp vs ?

13. Opinions Wanted: Solaris 2.4 vs. AIX vs. HP/UX vs AT&T Sys5v4