performance question

DISCUSSION [email protected] 4 participants 5 messages Apr 1, 2003 1 message not in the archive

Subsystems (2)

NFS client NFS server

lore

Share & tools

lore

A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 1049188686.19334.20.camel@deskpro02

[email protected]

author

2003-04-01 15:35 UTC #1 lore raw

Thanks to the several people for responses!

Quoted 5 lines

Quoted 4 lines
Server (coffeepot) - Athlon XP2000, Suse 8.1, 2.4.21-pre6 kernel from kernel.org, boots to an ata100 drive, promise rm8000 external hardware=20 raid5 array on adaptec Adaptec AHA-2940U/UW/D controller, 3com 3c905C=20 forced to 100-FD with "/sbin/mii-tool -F 100baseTx-FD eth1".

Quoted 8 lines

Fast question: Are you sure the _switch_ is setup to do 100FD as well? In my experience, forcing FD on newer cards and switches is something that must be done carefully. Also, what about link flow control? I'm not sure the 3c905c can be forced to do flow control by simple means if your switch happens to support it. Try the same using N-Way auto-negotiation and check what the 3c905c thinks about it.

Flow control on the switch is disabled - the default, I checked. It's also set for 100-FD, like my ethernet cards. I always hard-set ethernet settings because I don't trust autonegotiation under all circumstances.

I installed iperf on both machines and there is not a problem sending large amounts of data between machines.

coffeepot:~ # /usr/local/bin/iperf -s -u

froth:/tmp/iperf-1.7.0 # /usr/local/bin/iperf -c 10.0.34.1 -b 100m
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.34.1, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 5] local 10.0.34.2 port 32876 connected with 10.0.34.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth

[  5]  0.0-10.0 sec   114 MBytes  95.6 Mbits/sec
[  5] Server Report:
[  5]  0.0-10.0 sec   114 MBytes  95.6 Mbits/sec  0.246 ms    0/81337 (0%)
[  5] Sent 81337 datagrams

froth:/proc # /usr/local/bin/iperf -c 10.0.34.1 -b 90m
WARNING: option -b implies udp testing
------------------------------------------------------------
Client connecting to 10.0.34.1, UDP port 5001
Sending 1470 byte datagrams
UDP buffer size: 64.0 KByte (default)
------------------------------------------------------------
[ 5] local 10.0.34.2 port 32876 connected with 10.0.34.1 port 5001
[ ID] Interval Transfer Bandwidth

[  5]  0.0-10.0 sec   108 MBytes  90.5 Mbits/sec
[  5] Server Report:
[  5]  0.0-10.0 sec   108 MBytes  90.5 Mbits/sec  0.000 ms    0/76925 (0%)
[  5] Sent 76925 datagrams

Quoted 6 lines

Cheers,
--=20
K=E5re Hviid Sys Admin [email protected] +45 3815 3075
Institut for Datalingvistik, Handelsh=F8jskolen i K=F8benhavn

Signature · 15 lines

/*
Jason Philbrook   |   Midcoast Internet Solutions - Internet Access,
    KB1IOJ        |  Hosting, and TCP-IP Networks for Midcoast Maine
 http://f64.nu/   |             http://www.midcoast.com/
*/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Philippe Gramoullé

2003-04-01 16:06 UTC #2 lore raw

Hi,

Unless you're using an old exotic Cisco switch, i don't think you should do=
this, IMHO.

We've had the worst problems doing that and since we use autoneg ( with int= el EEpro100 card)
we never had a single problem ever since.

Thanks,

Philippe

Philippe Gramoull=E9
[email protected]
Lycos Europe - NOC France

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:39:50 -0500 (EST)
[email protected] wrote:

| I always hard-set ethernet=20
| settings because I don't trust autonegotiation under all circumstances.

-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

Matt Heaton

2003-04-01 16:25 UTC #3 lore raw

I just have to respond to this. I must respectfully disagree. Autonegotiation is tolerable at best.
With certain equiptment it works flawlessly, but MANY brands autonegotiate correct speeds and duplex, but still exhibit 2-3% packetloss or intermittant latency (high pings times etc). A perfect example is my cisco 2940 catalyst switch and my alteon/nortel 180e (layer 2-7 switch). Both switches are high quality and work well, but if you link them up with autonegiation you will have problems. It will detect proper speeds and duplex, but has speed problems and packet loss. When contacting BOTH cisco and nortel support they both said autonegiation is bad news and should be used only to get things up and going. Cisco said if all the products were cisco then no problem, just as nortel said the same thing. Just my 2 cents worth, but I have seen this problem on more than 5 devices on my own network alone.

L8r...

Matt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe Gramoullé" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:06 AM
Subject: Re: [NFS] performance question

Hi,

Unless you're using an old exotic Cisco switch, i don't think you should do this, IMHO.

We've had the worst problems doing that and since we use autoneg ( with intel EEpro100 card)
we never had a single problem ever since.

Thanks,

Philippe

Philippe Gramoullé
[email protected]
Lycos Europe - NOC France

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:39:50 -0500 (EST)
[email protected] wrote:

| I always hard-set ethernet
| settings because I don't trust autonegotiation under all circumstances.

Philippe Gramoullé

2003-04-01 17:08 UTC #4 lore raw

Hi,

Ok, i should have been more precise :)

My recommandations were only for NIC <-> switch.

In case of switch <-> switch then you could indeed force things without problems.

I was refering to some Linux NFS servers, here, having big troubles talkin= g to=20
a switch (sorry i don't remember the brand) on which settings were forced.

Thanks,

Philippe

Philippe Gramoull=E9
[email protected]
Lycos Europe - NOC France

On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 09:22:13 -0700
"Matt Heaton" <[email protected]> wrote:

  | I just have to respond to this.  I must respectfully disagree.
  | Autonegotiation is tolerable at best.
  | With certain equiptment it works flawlessly, but MANY brands autonegoti=

ate
| correct speeds and duplex, but still exhibit 2-3% packetloss or intermi=
ttant
| latency (high pings times etc). A perfect example is my cisco 2940 cat=
alyst
| switch and my alteon/nortel 180e (layer 2-7 switch). Both switches are=
high
| quality and work well, but if you link them up with autonegiation you w=
ill

  | have problems.  It will detect proper speeds and duplex, but has speed
  | problems and packet loss.  When contacting BOTH cisco and nortel support
  | they both said autonegiation is bad news and should be used only to get
  | things up and going.  Cisco said if all the products were cisco then no
  | problem, just as nortel said the same thing.  Just my 2 cents worth, bu=
t I
  | have seen this problem on more than 5 devices on my own network alone.
  |=20
  | L8r...
  |=20
  | Matt
  |=20
  | ----- Original Message -----
  | From: "Philippe Gramoull=E9" <[email protected]>
  | To: <[email protected]>
  | Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2003 9:06 AM
  | Subject: Re: [NFS] performance question
  |=20
  |=20
  | Hi,
  |=20
  | Unless you're using an old exotic Cisco switch, i don't think you shoul=
d do
  | this, IMHO.
  |=20
  | We've had the worst problems doing that and since we use autoneg ( with
  | intel EEpro100 card)
  | we never had a single problem ever since.
  |=20
  | Thanks,
  |=20
  | Philippe
  |=20
  | --
  |=20
  | Philippe Gramoull=E9
  | [email protected]
  | Lycos Europe - NOC France
  |=20
  |=20
  |=20
  |=20
  | On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:39:50 -0500 (EST)
  | [email protected] wrote:
  |=20
  |   | I always hard-set ethernet
  |   |  settings because I don't trust autonegotiation under all circumsta=
nces.
  |=20
  |=20
  | -------------------------------------------------------
  | This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:
  | Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!
  | No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
  | http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
  | _______________________________________________
  | NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
  | https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
  |=20
  |=20
  |=20
  |=20
  | -------------------------------------------------------
  | This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb:=20
  | Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth!=20
  | No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
  | http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
  | _______________________________________________
  | NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
  | https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
  |=20

Bogdan Costescu

2003-04-01 18:45 UTC #5 lore raw

In reply to [email protected]

Quoted 3 lines · On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 [email protected] wrote:

Flow control on the switch is disabled - the default, I checked. It's also set for 100-FD, like my ethernet cards. I always hard-set ethernet settings because I don't trust autonegotiation under all circumstances.

People that don't want to be helped should not ask for help any more! I've already warned about forcing speed, check the net driver mailing lists and scyld.com to see why and also for some words from Donald Becker about why the forcing of speed and duplex ever came into discussion.

Quoted 1 line

WARNING: option -b implies udp testing

Oh yes, you want to test network quality with UDP... Have you ever thought that NFS needs communication both ways ? If you think that your network with forced full-duplex is perfect, try two UDP streams in opposite directions - you should not loose one packet and still achieve high bandwidth; and if you want to stress it even more, try UDP packets that do not fit in an Ethernet frame.

Signature · 17 lines

Bogdan Costescu

IWR - Interdisziplinaeres Zentrum fuer Wissenschaftliches Rechnen
Universitaet Heidelberg, INF 368, D-69120 Heidelberg, GERMANY
Telephone: +49 6221 54 8869, Telefax: +49 6221 54 8868
E-mail: [email protected]



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: ValueWeb: 
Dedicated Hosting for just $79/mo with 500 GB of bandwidth! 
No other company gives more support or power for your dedicated server
http://click.atdmt.com/AFF/go/sdnxxaff00300020aff/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs