CentOS - Jul 2012 - Fwd: Bug 800181: NFSv4 on RHEL 6.3 over six times slower than 5.8

Thought I'd post this here, too - I emailed it to the redhat list, and
that's pretty moribund, while I've seen redhatters here....

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Bug 800181: NFSv4 on RHEL 6.2 over six times slower than 5.7
From:    m.roth at 5-cent.us
Date:    Tue, July 10, 2012 09:54
To:      "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list at
redhat.com>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
> For any redhatters on the list, I'm going to be reopening this bug
today.
>
> I am also VERY unhappy with Redhat. I filed the bug months ago, and it was
> *never* assigned - no one apparently even looked at it. It's a
> show-stopper for us, since it hits us on our home directory servers.
>
> A week or so ago, I updated our test system to 6.3, and *nothing* has
> changed. Unpack a large file locally, and it's seconds. Unpack from an
> NFS-mounted directory to a local disk takes about 1.5min. NFS mount either
> an ext3 or ext4 fs, cd to that directory, and I run a job to unpack a
> large file to the NFS-mounted directory, and it's between 6.5 and 7.5
> *MINUTES*. We cannot move our home directory servers to 6.x with this
> unacknowledged ->BUG<-.
>
> Large file is defined as a 28M .gz file, unpacked to 92M.
>
> This is 100% repeatable.
>
> I tried sending an email to our support weeks ago, and got no response.
> Maybe it takes shaming in a public forum to get anyone to acknowledge this
> exists....
>
          mark

It may not be a bug, it may be that RHEL 6.x implements I/O barriers
correctly, which slows things down but keeps you from losing data....


On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 7:18 AM,  <m.roth at 5-cent.us>
wrote:
> Thought I'd post this here, too - I emailed it to the redhat list, and
> that's pretty moribund, while I've seen redhatters here....
>
> ---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
> Subject: Bug 800181: NFSv4 on RHEL 6.2 over six times slower than 5.7
> From:    m.roth at 5-cent.us
> Date:    Tue, July 10, 2012 09:54
> To:      "General Red Hat Linux discussion list" <redhat-list
at redhat.com>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> For any redhatters on the list, I'm going to be reopening this bug
today.
>>
>> I am also VERY unhappy with Redhat. I filed the bug months ago, and it
was
>> *never* assigned - no one apparently even looked at it. It's a
>> show-stopper for us, since it hits us on our home directory servers.
>>
>> A week or so ago, I updated our test system to 6.3, and *nothing* has
>> changed. Unpack a large file locally, and it's seconds. Unpack from
an
>> NFS-mounted directory to a local disk takes about 1.5min. NFS mount
either
>> an ext3 or ext4 fs, cd to that directory, and I run a job to unpack a
>> large file to the NFS-mounted directory, and it's between 6.5 and
7.5
>> *MINUTES*. We cannot move our home directory servers to 6.x with this
>> unacknowledged ->BUG<-.
>>
>> Large file is defined as a 28M .gz file, unpacked to 92M.
>>
>> This is 100% repeatable.
>>
>> I tried sending an email to our support weeks ago, and got no response.
>> Maybe it takes shaming in a public forum to get anyone to acknowledge
this
>> exists....
>>
>           mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


-- 
G?

On 11/07/12 00:18, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:
>> For any redhatters on the list, I'm going to be reopening this bug
today.
>>
>> I am also VERY unhappy with Redhat. I filed the bug months ago, and it
was
>> *never* assigned - no one apparently even looked at it. It's a
>> show-stopper for us, since it hits us on our home directory servers.
Out of curiosity, do you have a Red Hat subscription with Standard or 
better support?  The SLAs for even a severity 4 issue should have got 
you a response within 2 business days.

https://access.redhat.com/support/offerings/production/sla.html

Did you give them a call?

If you are just using the Red Hat bugzilla that might be your problem. 
I've heard a rumour that Red Hat doesn't really monitor that channel, 
giving preference to issues raised though their customer portal.  That 
does makes _some_ commercial sense, but if they are, it would be polite 
to shut down the old bugzilla service and save some frustration.  I 
don't have a Red Hat subscription myself, so I can't really test this. 
Can anyone, perhaps with a Red Hat subscription, shed any light on this?

It occurs that I might be hi-jacking a thread here, so apologies if that 
is the case.

Cheers,

Kal

-- 
Kahlil (Kal) Hodgson                       GPG: C9A02289
Head of Technology                         (m) +61 (0) 4 2573 0382
DealMax Pty Ltd                            (w) +61 (0) 3 9008 5281

Suite 1415
401 Docklands Drive
Docklands VIC 3008 Australia

"All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that
the parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore,
if you can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all
means, do not use a hammer."  -- IBM maintenance manual, 1925

On Wed, July 11, 2012 00:21, Kahlil Hodgson wrote:
>
> If you are just using the Red Hat bugzilla that might be your problem.
> I've heard a rumour that Red Hat doesn't really monitor that
channel,
> giving preference to issues raised though their customer portal.  That
> does makes _some_ commercial sense, but if they are, it would be
> polite
> to shut down the old bugzilla service and save some frustration.  I
> don't have a Red Hat subscription myself, so I can't really test
this.
> Can anyone, perhaps with a Red Hat subscription, shed any light on
> this?
This rumour is almost certainly unfounded.  I report the odd bug to RH
through Bugzilla and I have always had a timely acknowledgement and as
far as I can tell they have either been rejected or accepted within a
reasonably short time.  Some of them have actually been fixed.

-- 
***          E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel          ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB at Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3