Hi,
I am looking at setting up a NAS trype server to provide a shared storage facility to my other servers..
So to connect from the Servers to the NAS box I will be using either NFS or Samba and seeing that it will be a linux only environment I figured NFS would probably be the way to go..
but..
From the tests I have done this morning it would seem that Samba is far faster (3x) than NFS in terms of write speed and about the same in terms of read speed.. I know that Samba probably comes fairly well optimised out of the box but I think NFS could probably do with some tuning..
I have tried mounting with rsize=8192,wsize=8192 but this didn't make any difference..
Anyone got any ideas or links to good NFS tuning sites.. (the how-to on nfs.sourceforge.net didn't help me much)
Later..
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 08:18, WipeOut wrote:
Hi,
I am looking at setting up a NAS trype server to provide a shared storage facility to my other servers..
So to connect from the Servers to the NAS box I will be using either NFS or Samba and seeing that it will be a linux only environment I figured NFS would probably be the way to go..
but..
From the tests I have done this morning it would seem that Samba is far faster (3x) than NFS in terms of write speed and about the same in terms of read speed.. I know that Samba probably comes fairly well optimised out of the box but I think NFS could probably do with some tuning..
I have tried mounting with rsize=8192,wsize=8192 but this didn't make any difference..
Anyone got any ideas or links to good NFS tuning sites.. (the how-to on nfs.sourceforge.net didn't help me much)
---- I was hoping to see some interest in this thread as I am about to do the same thing - obvious the permissions on the NAS aren't the same if you use Samba
Craig
Craig White wrote:
I was hoping to see some interest in this thread as I am about to do the same thing - obvious the permissions on the NAS aren't the same if you use Samba
Craig
I eventually worked out why there was such a huge write performance difference between NFS and Samba..
Basically Samba by default will buffer writes to the hard drive.. NFS will not, NFS will confirm that the data has bee written to dike before it continues which means that the data integrity is taking preference ofer performance when using NFS..
You can override this by adding the "async" option to the NFS export.. when you do this NFS will buffer the writes and is actually then faster than Samba (probably down to the fact that its using UDP instead of TCP).. When buffering the writes in any system there is a chance of data loss in the event of a power failure or a server crash..
Anyway I found this quite useful that I am able to decied on a per export basis wheather its more important to have write performance or data integrity..
So I will certainly be using NFS for my system because there will be no Windows systems that I need to maintain communications with..
Later..
Have you given NFS tcp a try? UDP works but has its down sides. One of them being if you need to retransmit.
/etc/fstab
nfs:/nfswrite /nfswrite nfs noatime,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,actimeo=60,bg,intr,timeo=14,tcp,nfsvers=3 0 0
Works real good for me.
On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 01:39, WipeOut wrote:
Craig White wrote:
I was hoping to see some interest in this thread as I am about to do the same thing - obvious the permissions on the NAS aren't the same if you use Samba
Craig
I eventually worked out why there was such a huge write performance difference between NFS and Samba..
Basically Samba by default will buffer writes to the hard drive.. NFS will not, NFS will confirm that the data has bee written to dike before it continues which means that the data integrity is taking preference ofer performance when using NFS..
You can override this by adding the "async" option to the NFS export.. when you do this NFS will buffer the writes and is actually then faster than Samba (probably down to the fact that its using UDP instead of TCP).. When buffering the writes in any system there is a chance of data loss in the event of a power failure or a server crash..
Anyway I found this quite useful that I am able to decied on a per export basis wheather its more important to have write performance or data integrity..
So I will certainly be using NFS for my system because there will be no Windows systems that I need to maintain communications with..
Later..
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Chris Miller wrote:
Have you given NFS tcp a try? UDP works but has its down sides. One of them being if you need to retransmit.
/etc/fstab
nfs:/nfswrite /nfswrite nfs noatime,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,actimeo=60,bg,intr,timeo=14,tcp,nfsvers=3 0 0
Works real good for me.
I didn't try NFS over TCP, main reason being I figured that I have a reliable lint between the two PC I was testing with.. UDP having a lower overhead seemed the best choice for throughput.. I read that TCP was only required for networks that had a lot of collisions..
I will give TCP a try anyway...
Thanks..
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 02:55, WipeOut wrote:
Chris Miller wrote:
Have you given NFS tcp a try? UDP works but has its down sides. One of them being if you need to retransmit.
/etc/fstab
nfs:/nfswrite /nfswrite nfs noatime,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,actimeo=60,bg,intr,timeo=14,tcp,nfsvers=3 0 0
Works real good for me.
I didn't try NFS over TCP, main reason being I figured that I have a reliable lint between the two PC I was testing with.. UDP having a lower overhead seemed the best choice for throughput.. I read that TCP was only required for networks that had a lot of collisions..
I will give TCP a try anyway...
---- do post up your conclusions - if any
Thamks
Craig
Craig White wrote:
On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 02:55, WipeOut wrote:
Chris Miller wrote:
Have you given NFS tcp a try? UDP works but has its down sides. One of them being if you need to retransmit.
/etc/fstab
nfs:/nfswrite /nfswrite nfs noatime,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,actimeo=60,bg,intr,timeo=14,tcp,nfsvers=3 0 0
Works real good for me.
I didn't try NFS over TCP, main reason being I figured that I have a reliable lint between the two PC I was testing with.. UDP having a lower overhead seemed the best choice for throughput.. I read that TCP was only required for networks that had a lot of collisions..
I will give TCP a try anyway...
do post up your conclusions - if any
Thamks
Craig
I have just done a bit of testing using NFS over UDP and TCP..
My conclusions are that for the most part the performance difference between UDP and TCP is very small..
UDP is slightly faster in my test environment in various tests using bonnie++, iozone and straight reading and writing of files.. This is as it should be given the lower overhead of UDP..
TCP would probably have an advantage in a congested or unreliable network that was experiencing many collisions or packet loss which caused a lot of retransmissions..
Later..
WipeOut wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net writes:
You can override this by adding the "async" option to the NFS export.. when you do this NFS will buffer the writes and is actually then faster than Samba (probably down to the fact that its using UDP instead of TCP).. When buffering the writes in any system there is a chance of data loss in the event of a power failure or a server crash..
No hits on a grep for `sync' in either `man nfs' or `man nfsd'
Where might I read about that option?
Harry Putnam wrote:
WipeOut wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net writes:
You can override this by adding the "async" option to the NFS export.. when you do this NFS will buffer the writes and is actually then faster than Samba (probably down to the fact that its using UDP instead of TCP).. When buffering the writes in any system there is a chance of data loss in the event of a power failure or a server crash..
No hits on a grep for `sync' in either `man nfs' or `man nfsd'
Where might I read about that option?
Take a look at "man exports" and look at the "async" option.. The "sync" option is the default..
Later
WipeOut wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net writes:
Take a look at "man exports" and look at the "async" option.. The "sync" option is the default..
Yes, thanks. I see it there.
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 07:08, Harry Putnam wrote:
WipeOut wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net writes:
Take a look at "man exports" and look at the "async" option.. The "sync" option is the default..
Yes, thanks. I see it there.
Yeah, thanks for bringing it up; I've really wanted to tune my NFS here, but never knew much about it. (The trained monkey syndrome).
But your exploration of these parts has enlightened me; thank you for that!
Cheers!
Brian Fahrlander wrote:
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 07:08, Harry Putnam wrote:
WipeOut wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net writes:
Take a look at "man exports" and look at the "async" option.. The "sync" option is the default..
Yes, thanks. I see it there.
Yeah, thanks for bringing it up; I've really wanted to tune my NFS here, but never knew much about it. (The trained monkey syndrome).
But your exploration of these parts has enlightened me; thank you for that!
Cheers!
No Problem,
Thats the great thing about these communities.. If you find out anything new or test anything interesting post it because there is always someone who will benefit..
HTH..
Later..