2.4.20rc1 NFS V3 UDP client problems
Subsystems (2)
I'm seeing some 2.4.20rc1 client problems.
25 seconds to write a 1G file
13 minutes to read that file back
CLIENT 2.4.20rc1 NFSV3 UDP HIGHMEM SUPPORT ON
gigE card with jumbo frames enabled
Tested with both netgear and intel -- same result
SERVER
Netapps 825 ontap 6.3
gigE card with jumbo frames enabled
private point-to-point connection.
Is this a HIGHMEM problem? Or is it related to jumbo frames? I'll test with both disabled.
I'm seeing network errors on the client -- dropped and overruns are both the same.
Anything I should try?
eric
# time dd if=/dev/zero of=file1 bs=1G count=1 1+0 records in 1+0 records out
real 0m25.881s user 0m0.000s sys 0m4.220s
(run a program to calloc 1G of RAM and clear some buffer cache)
# time dd if=file1 of=/dev/null
2097152+0 records in
2097152+0 records out
real 13m7.445s user 0m0.370s sys 0m2.160s
# ifconfig eth0
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:02:B3:AC:52:F5
inet addr:10.0.0.2 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:9000 Metric:1
RX packets:1534585 errors:10240 dropped:10240 overruns:10240
frame:0
TX packets:5332748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:2069590604 (1973.7 Mb) TX bytes:587855320 (560.6 Mb)
Interrupt:12 Base address:0xc000 Memory:ea020000-ea040000-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
I disabled jumbo frames and I'm seeing 70M/s reads (with a clean cache)..
There must be a UDP or NFS client problem with the 9000 mtu packets.
eric
Quoted 56 lines · Eric Whiting
I'm seeing some 2.4.20rc1 client problems.
25 seconds to write a 1G file
13 minutes to read that file backCLIENT 2.4.20rc1 NFSV3 UDP HIGHMEM SUPPORT ON
gigE card with jumbo frames enabled
Tested with both netgear and intel -- same resultSERVER
Netapps 825 ontap 6.3
gigE card with jumbo frames enabledprivate point-to-point connection.
Is this a HIGHMEM problem? Or is it related to jumbo frames? I'll test with both disabled.
I'm seeing network errors on the client -- dropped and overruns are both the same.
Anything I should try?
eric
# time dd if=/dev/zero of=file1 bs=1G count=1 1+0 records in 1+0 records outreal 0m25.881s user 0m0.000s sys 0m4.220s(run a program to calloc 1G of RAM and clear some buffer cache)
# time dd if=file1 of=/dev/null2097152+0 records in
2097152+0 records outreal 13m7.445s user 0m0.370s sys 0m2.160s# ifconfig eth0 eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:02:B3:AC:52:F5 inet addr:10.0.0.2 Bcast:10.255.255.255 Mask:255.0.0.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:9000 Metric:1 RX packets:1534585 errors:10240 dropped:10240 overruns:10240 frame:0 TX packets:5332748 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:2069590604 (1973.7 Mb) TX bytes:587855320 (560.6 Mb) Interrupt:12 Base address:0xc000 Memory:ea020000-ea040000
Quoted 7 lines
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
" " == Eric Whiting <[email protected]> writes:
> I disabled jumbo frames and I'm seeing 70M/s reads (with a > clean cache)..
> There must be a UDP or NFS client problem with the 9000 mtu > packets.
NFS neither knows nor cares what the MTU is: all it knows is that it has a socket. I've suspected a bug in the UDP layer for a long time as you are far from being the first person to report this problem when enabling jumbo frames.
Cheers,
Trond
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
We had to set our MTUs to 8960 for things to work. We've never followed through to see what the issue was though.
We are using SysKonnect cards and 2.4.18 kernel. Note, we haven't recently verified that the problem still exists.
--Shane
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
I tried various MTU values headed gradually towards 9000. I found that a MTUs between 1500 and 7500 give me the expected performance. MTU values of anything much more than that causes problems given my setup.
eric
Quoted 10 lines · [email protected] wrote:
We had to set our MTUs to 8960 for things to work. We've never followed through to see what the issue was though.
We are using SysKonnect cards and 2.4.18 kernel. Note, we haven't recently verified that the problem still exists.
--Shane
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 3 lines · Eric Whiting
I tried various MTU values headed gradually towards 9000. I found that a MTUs between 1500 and 7500 give me the expected performance. MTU values of anything much more than that causes problems given my setup.
Which NIC? Some chipsets (like ns83820) only have an 8KB TX fifo and end up doing two passes over the data for larger packet sizes. Also, running gige with a standard 32bit/33MHz bus is pretty close to the limits.
-ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Both of these NICs seemed to have the same behavior. <6>eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection <6>eth1: NetGear GA620 Gigabit Ethernet at 0xea060000, irq 11
Yes -- I'm running on a 32bit/33Mhz bus right now. I do have a Sun 280R with a 64bit/66Mhz card in a 66Mhz slot that doesn't even seem to support jumbo frames at all.
eric
Quoted 11 lines · Benjamin LaHaise
Quoted 3 lines · Eric Whiting
I tried various MTU values headed gradually towards 9000. I found that a MTUs between 1500 and 7500 give me the expected performance. MTU values of anything much more than that causes problems given my setup.
Which NIC? Some chipsets (like ns83820) only have an 8KB TX fifo and end up doing two passes over the data for larger packet sizes. Also, running gige with a standard 32bit/33MHz bus is pretty close to the limits.
-ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Whiting
Both of these NICs seemed to have the same behavior. <6>eth0: Intel(R) PRO/1000 Network Connection <6>eth1: NetGear GA620 Gigabit Ethernet at
0xea060000, irq 11Yes -- I'm running on a 32bit/33Mhz bus right now. I do have a Sun 280R with a 64bit/66Mhz card in a 66Mhz slot that doesn't even seem to support jumbo frames at all.
I'd guess you're hitting the PCI bandwidth limitations then, as the larger packets permit greater throughput, which in turn drives up bus utilizations. If you've got any disk controllers on the same bus, that would definately explain the problem (or any other devices on the bus that are in use).
-ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
Re: 2.4.20rc1 NFS V3 UDP client problems -- (not a problem now)
Ben,
I found a 64Bit/66Mhz PCI bus and the jumbo frames are working fine. Same
kernel, same network cards, same Netapp 825 filer -- simply a different motherboard.
Here are the NFS client read/write speeds for my setup. The write speeds appear to be somewhat limited by the netapps 825 disk/cpu speed. I wish I had a netapps 9xx to test.
TCP UDP
READ 99MB/s 104MB/s
WRITE 36MB/s 49MB/s
UDP looks good with my current setup -- but with the gigE running jumbo frames in the 32 bit PCI bus the UDP was sick on the reads -- 1MB/s.
Read testing is:
while(true);do mount blaa;dd if=path of=/dev/null bs=x count=y;umount blaa;done
where bs/count equal a 500M file -- to use the netapps cache.
Write testing is:
dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=1M
Network rates monitored using netapps syststat and the time results.
eric
Quoted 6 lines · Benjamin LaHaise
I'd guess you're hitting the PCI bandwidth limitations then, as the larger packets permit greater throughput, which in turn drives up bus utilizations. If you've got any disk controllers on the same bus, that would definately explain the problem (or any other devices on the bus that are in use).
-ben
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs