[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1267539563.3099.43.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 09:19:23 -0500
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 4*rsize readahead size
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 11:10 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Here is one more test on a big ext4 disk file:
>
> 16k 39.7 MB/s
> 32k 54.3 MB/s
> 64k 63.6 MB/s
> 128k 72.6 MB/s
> 256k 71.7 MB/s
> rsize ==> 512k 71.7 MB/s
> 1024k 72.2 MB/s
> 2048k 71.0 MB/s
> 4096k 73.0 MB/s
> 8192k 74.3 MB/s
> 16384k 74.5 MB/s
>
> It shows that >=128k client side readahead is enough for single disk
> case :) As for RAID configurations, I guess big server side readahead
> should be enough.
There are lots of people who would like to use NFS on their company WAN,
where you typically have high bandwidths (up to 10GigE), but often a
high latency too (due to geographical dispersion).
My ping latency from here to a typical server in NetApp's Bangalore
office is ~ 312ms. I read your test results with 10ms delays, but have
you tested with higher than that?
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists