On Sat, 1 Sep 2001 12:18, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > I agree with most of what you say, but not with this. You can say a lot > about NFS, including that it's bad, insecure, to be thrown away and > changed by CODA or sth else, but not that it's slow. > > I've seen data transfers of ~800KByte/s via NFS. Over my 10MBit coax > network. From a Pentium 166 to a Pentium 133. I don't know any other > network file serving protocol that can do this. What other network protocols have you tried? I have attached the results from running Bonnie++ with my Thinkpad (P3-650, 256M) as an NFS client with both 10 baseT PC-Card and 100baseT CardBus network cards connected to an Athlon 800 with 256M, PCI 100baseT card and with a full duplex switch in between. The only time that NFS is really efficient is bulk input. I mounted the NFS share with rsize?92,wsize?92,nolock. Both machines run 2.4.9 and the NFS serving is in the kernel. I tried using smbfs but it dropped out under load (seems to be a bug in the client code). I tried making the Thinkpad the NFS server, but it wasn't fast enough and the client thought that it had fallen off the net and started the laborious back-off process (which kills performance). The end result, NFS isn't nearly as fast as it should be, but SMB is worse because I couldn't get it to work. Let's redirect this discussion to debian-user... -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home pageTitle: Bonnie++ Benchmark results
| Version 1.92a | Sequential Output | Sequential Input | Random Seeks | Sequential Create | Random Create | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| Size | Chunk Size | Per Char | Block | Rewrite | Per Char | Block | Num Files | Max Size | Create | Read | Delete | Create | Read | Delete | ||||||||||||||
| K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | K/sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | /sec | % CPU | |||||
| lyta-100-nfs | 999367121 | 496M | 546 | 99 | 4885 | 3 | 2407 | 2 | 712 | 98 | 10275 | 3 | 177.0 | 1 | 16 | 1792 | 9 | 4340 | 16 | 1924 | 11 | 1611 | 8 | 5124 | 15 | 1454 | ||
| lyta-100-nfs | Latency | 7 | 16086us | 2683ms | 457ms | 39709us | 871ms | Latency | 462ms | 164ms | 12271us | 132ms | 98528us | 728us | ||||||||||||||
| lyta-10-nfs | 999378658 | 496M | 403 | 99 | 884 | 3 | 424 | 4 | 471 | 94 | 1209 | 0 | 87.8 | 4 | 16 | 590 | 14 | 1127 | 16 | 580 | 11 | 588 | 15 | 1232 | 19 | 155 | ||
| lyta-10-nfs | Latency | 3 | 30693us | 1227ms | 848ms | 52184us | 674ms | Latency | 774ms | 88644us | 25376us | 114ms | 115ms | 7331us | ||||||||||||||
1.92a,1.92a,lyta-100-nfs,999367121,496M,,546,99,4885,3,2407,2,712,98,10275,3,177.0,1,16,,,,,1792,9,4340,16,1924,11,1611,8,5124,15,1454,7,16086us,2683ms,457ms,39709us,871ms,462ms,164ms,12271us,132ms,98528us,728us,142ms 1.92a,1.92a,lyta-10-nfs,999378658,496M,,403,99,884,3,424,4,471,94,1209,0,87.8,4,16,,,,,590,14,1127,16,580,11,588,15,1232,19,155,3,30693us,1227ms,848ms,52184us,674ms,774ms,88644us,25376us,114ms,115ms,7331us,139ms