Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE?

[Rick Macklem]

J David wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem at uoguelph.ca>
> wrote:
> > Hopefully Garrett and/or you will be able to do some testing of it
> > and report back w.r.t. performance gains, etc.
> 
> OK, it has seen light testing.
> 
> As predicted the vtnet drops are eliminated and CPU load is reduced.
> 
> The performance is also improved:
> 
> Test Before After
> SeqWr 1506 7461
> SeqRd 566 192015
> RndRd 602 218730
> RndWr 44 13972
> 
> All numbers in kiB/sec.
> 
Oops, ignore most of what I said about FHA. I now see that the default
is 8 nfsd per FH, which should handle readaheads.

However, it does remind me that it would be nice to try cranking up
the readahead value for the client mount. "-o readahead=8" would be
a good one to try (you can go as high as 16, if you'd like).

Have fun with it, rick

> There were initially still some problems with lousy hostcache values
> on the client after the test, which is what causes the iperf
> performance to tank after the NFS test, but after a reboot of both
> sides and fresh retest, I haven't reproduced that again.  If it comes
> back, I'll try to figure out what's going on.
> 
> But this definitely looks like a move in the right direction.
> 
> Thanks!
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to
> "freebsd-net-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>