Article View: comp.sys.sgi.admin
Article #174Re: Return of the Poor NFS performance
From: Michael/Miguel Sanchez
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:14
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:14
39 lines
2677 bytes
2677 bytes
In article <JP107.93Jan22121147@grus.cus.cam.ac.uk>, jp107@cus.cam.ac.uk (Jon Peatfield) writes: |> Ok, I've had a few nice chats with some of the readers of this group |> and with our local SGI support line, who are currently off chasing the |> fact that this has been reported to them before but they couldn't find |> what had happened last time (what kind of help-desk software does the |> support line use?) |> |> Anyway it turns out that my SGI Indigos can only push files over NFS |> at about 10 to 30 Kbytes/sec (after the patch mentioned below) while |> all the rest of our machines (Sun/HP/Mac), can manage over |> 110Kbytes/sec (I have a large number of figures if you want them.) I |> got a set of patches from SGI for general network performance (a new |> ethernet device driver), which improved performance a good deal, but |> still didn't put it in the acceptable range. After hitting my head |> for a while and replacing transceivers and moving machines etc, I |> watched the network with etherfind (great tool -- why don't SGI |> provide it?) and spotted that the SGIs are waiting after each NFS |> write for an acknowledgement from the server. Our servers don't |> acknowledge 'til the block is on physical disk (like normal machines), |> so there is a huge wait. This is as if the biod daemons are not |> working (but we have four (4) running.) On all the other machines in |> the dept, if I have N biods then I don't see blocking 'til N+1 |> requests are outstanding. The delays get worse when one is over a |> high latency netwrok while other machines just cope. What is worse is |> that if the Acknowledgement reply is lost (as sometimes happens on |> ethernets (it is UDP after all)), the SGI waits for 4.5 SECONDS before |> retrying the send. A few of those and the time really adds up. it almost sounds like you are hard mounting the nfs mount points...are you doing that? -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Miguel (Michael) J. Sanchez miguel@csd.sgi.com Member Technical Staff, Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1993Jan22.221447.10697@odin.corp.sgi.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!boytoy.csd.sgi.com!miguelReferences:
<JP107.93Jan22121147@grus.cus.cam.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sgi.admin Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!sgiblab!sgigate!odin!boytoy.csd.sgi.com!miguel From: miguel@boytoy.csd.sgi.com (Michael/Miguel Sanchez) Subject: Re: Return of the Poor NFS performance Message-ID: <1993Jan22.221447.10697@odin.corp.sgi.com> Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News) Nntp-Posting-Host: boytoy.csd.sgi.com Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. References: <JP107.93Jan22121147@grus.cus.cam.ac.uk> Distribution: comp Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 22:14:47 GMT Lines: 39