Hi.
Sorry for x-posting but the thread was originally meant for
freebsd-stable but then a performance-related question slowly emerged
into the message ;-)
Inspired by the nfs-benchmarks by Willem Jan Withagen I ran some
simple benchmarks against a FreeBSD 5.4 RC2-server. My seven clients
are RC1 and is a mix of i386 and amd64.
The purpose of this test was *not* to measure throughput using various
r/w-sizes. So all clients were mounted using r/w-sizes of 32768. The
only difference was the usage of udp- or tcp-mounts. I only ran the
test once.
The server has net.isr.enable set to 1 (active), gbit-nic is em. Used
'systat -ifstat 1' to measure throughput. The storage is ide->fiber
using a qlogic 2310 hba. It's a dual PIII at 1.3 GHz.
I'm rsyncing to and from the nfsserver, the files are some KB
(thumbnails) and and at most 1 MB (the image itself). The folder is
approx. 1.8 GB. The mix of files very much reflects our load.
*to* nfs-server *from* nfs-server
tcp 41 MB/s 100 MB/s
udp 30 MB/s 74 MB/s
In my environment tcp is (quite) faster than udp, so I'll stick to
that in the near future. So eventhough I only made one run the
tcp-times are so much faster and it utilized the cpu more that I
beleive doing more runs would only level the score a bit.
Q:
Will I get better performance upgrading the server from dual PIII to dual Xeon?
A:
regards
Claus
Claus Guttesen wrote:> Hi. > > Sorry for x-posting but the thread was originally meant for > freebsd-stable but then a performance-related question slowly emerged > into the message ;-) > > Inspired by the nfs-benchmarks by Willem Jan Withagen I ran some > simple benchmarks against a FreeBSD 5.4 RC2-server. My seven clients > are RC1 and is a mix of i386 and amd64. > > The purpose of this test was *not* to measure throughput using various > r/w-sizes. So all clients were mounted using r/w-sizes of 32768. The > only difference was the usage of udp- or tcp-mounts. I only ran the > test once. > > The server has net.isr.enable set to 1 (active), gbit-nic is em. Used > 'systat -ifstat 1' to measure throughput. The storage is ide->fiber > using a qlogic 2310 hba. It's a dual PIII at 1.3 GHz. > > I'm rsyncing to and from the nfsserver, the files are some KB > (thumbnails) and and at most 1 MB (the image itself). The folder is > approx. 1.8 GB. The mix of files very much reflects our load. > > *to* nfs-server *from* nfs-server > tcp 41 MB/s 100 MB/s > udp 30 MB/s 74 MB/s > > In my environment tcp is (quite) faster than udp, so I'll stick to > that in the near future. So eventhough I only made one run the > tcp-times are so much faster and it utilized the cpu more that I > beleive doing more runs would only level the score a bit. > > Q: > Will I get better performance upgrading the server from dual PIII to dual Xeon? > > A:rsync is CPU intensive, so depending on how much cpu you were using for this, you may or may not gain. How busy was the server during that time? Is this to a single IDE disk? If so, you are probably bottlenecked by that IDE drive. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology A lost ounce of gold may be found, a lost moment of time never. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Q: > > Will I get better performance upgrading the server from dual PIII to dual Xeon? > > A: > > rsync is CPU intensive, so depending on how much cpu you were using for this, > you may or may not gain. How busy was the server during that time? Is this to > a single IDE disk? If so, you are probably bottlenecked by that IDE drive.The storage is ide->fiber. Using tcp-mounts and peaking 100 MB/s it used just about 100 % cpu. Rsync was only used to copy the folder recursively (-a), it used nfs to trasnfer the files to the nfs-server. regards Claus