Slow speed via NFS
Alexander Sichkar
speed is small. For SMB everything is OK. I tried different Linux
distros. Does anyone have problem like this?
P.S. I use the latest RC ver. of this wonderful firmware.
Joao Cardoso
On Nov 26, 6:12 pm, Alexander Sichkar <a.sich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> When copying files to DNS-323 via NFS occurring stuttering and transfer
> speed is small.
Transfer speed is not high, but I would not say its small.
As for "stuttering", I haven't noticed it.
There has been some complains relating to NFS transfer speed. I start
investigating that, but stopped midway. The only think I remember is
that CPU usage, as indicated by 'top', was about 60%, when
transferring large files (raw speed, not file/directory creation/
updating).
Perhaps some tuning is needed? for low memory-weak CPU? Don't know.
>For SMB everything is OK.
>I tried different Linux distros.
You mean, as the client?
One of the reasons to have Debian "under" Alt-F was to have the
ability to compare its performance against Alt-F, but I never ended
doing it. By comparing I mean using native Debian, not chroot, i.e.,
using the command 'debian -kexec' and not 'debian -chroot'.
Does someone wants to take that track? Network and disk I/O
performance?
porto
> As for "stuttering", I haven't noticed it.
When I say "stuttering" I mean transfer speed is not stable. It jumps
between 2 and 10 MB/s (NAS CPU load is about 45%).
Problem occurs when I copy a file to NAS, but when I copy a file from
NAS to PC everything is OK. In this case transfer speed is about 12-13
MB/s and it's stable.
>>For SMB everything is OK.
>>I tried different Linux distros.
>
> You mean, as the client?
Yes.
Also I wanted to ask. What transfer speed via gigabit network is
normal? I have about 15 MB/s from Box and about 14 to it (SMB).
I don't use any kind of RAID.
Jeremy MountainJohnson
with compressed and / or encrypted disk images over a network.
I usually peak about 12 over NFS (with RAID1), average around 10. If I
use partimage things slow down sporadically (client side) for
compression and encryption processes.
--
Jeremy MountainJohnson
Jeremy.Moun...@gmail.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Alt-F" group.
> To post to this group, send email to al...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt-f+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/alt-f?hl=en.
>
porto
> What are you copying? This sort of behavior is reminiscent of working
> with compressed and / or encrypted disk images over a network.
Just a video files.
> I usually peak about 12 over NFS (with RAID1), average around 10. If I
> use partimage things slow down sporadically (client side) for
> compression and encryption processes.
Do you have a gigabit network?
Jeremy MJ
Another thought that comes to mind, some people also run way too many
services (daemons), that could cause some inconsistency with
throughput performance. If you turn off a few media and other misc.
file servers, see if that helps.
On Nov 28, 1:52 pm, porto <a.sich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/11/28 Jeremy MountainJohnson <jeremy.mountainjohn...@gmail.com>:
Joao Cardoso
On Dec 10, 3:22 pm, Jeremy MJ <jeremy.mountainjohn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yes, I have a gigabit network.
>
> Another thought that comes to mind, some people also run way too many
> services (daemons), that could cause some inconsistency with
> throughput performance. If you turn off a few media and other misc.
> file servers, see if that helps.
Another option would be to use "async" instead of "sync".
You can use that if you mostly use NFS for reading. "async" was the
default NFS option, but it is not considered safe in case of a server
failure.
I found some old notes of mine on transfer speeds between the box and
a linux pc, with jumbo frames of several sizes on a gbit network, and
nfs was always slower that smb, tipically 20 versus 18 Mbps. For ftp I
got a top 24Mbps, so the problem is not the network, it is really nfs.
Unfortunately the notes does not state the exact test conditions but
the file size (1.2GB) and the frame size (9K).