NFS on 10G interface terribly slow

[Damien Fleuriot]

Gerrit,


Everyone's talking about the network performance and to some extent NFS
tuning.
I would argue that given your iperf results, the network itself is not at
fault.

In your first post I see no information regarding the local performance of
your disks, sans le NFS that is.

You may want to look into that first and ensure you get good read and write
results on the Solaris box, before trying to fix that which might not be at
fault.
Perhaps your NFS implementation is already giving you the maximum speed the
disks can achieve, or close enough.

You may also want to compare the results with another NFS client to the
Oracle server, say, god forbid, a *nux box for example.


On 26 June 2015 at 11:59, Gerrit Kühn <gerrit.kuehn at aei.mpg.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:49:11 -0400 (EDT) Rick Macklem
> <rmacklem at uoguelph.ca> wrote about Re: NFS on 10G interface terribly slow:
>
>
> RM> Recent commits to stable/10 (not in 10.1) done by Alexander Motin
> RM> (mav@) might help w.r.t. write performance (it avoids large writes
> RM> doing synchronous writes when the wcommitsize is exceeded). If you can
> RM> try stable/10, that might be worth it.
>
> Ok, I'll schedule an update then, I guess. OTOH, Scott reported that a
> similar setup is working fine for him with 10.0 and 10.1, so there is
> probably not much to gain. I'll try anyway...
>
> RM> Otherwise, the main mount option you can try is "wcommitsize", which
> RM> you probably want to make larger.
>
> Hm, which size would you recommend? I cannot find anything about this
> setting, not even what the default value would be. Is this reflected in
> some sysctl, or how can I find out what the actual value is?
>
>
> cu
>   Gerrit
> _______________________________________________
> 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"
>