Hi, I found that we are also experiencing performance issues using GFS. Earlier we thought EXT3 and GFS were performing equally so NFS is the issue. But I found that some tests were done incorrectly and EXT3 over NFS is twice faster than GFS over NFS. We formatted a SAN volume as EXT3 and benchmarked it on NFS client. We formatted the same SAN volume as GFS and benchmarked again. GFS + NFS is very slow. I have also read NFS tuning guides and tried several options. But no change whatsoever. Are there any other ways to debug this issue. It's a top most priority for us now. Thanks, Raj On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 Olivier Thibault wrote : >Hi, > >I have upgraded FC5, and it's now much better. >For information, here is a bonnie++ test result, on gfs exported via nfs, gigabit ethernet lan. >Version 1.01d ------Sequential Output------ --Sequential Input- --Random- > -Per Chr- --Block-- -Rewrite- -Per Chr- --Block-- --Seeks-- >Machine Size K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP K/sec %CP /sec %CP >poisson 4G 21383 19 21582 6 4026 75 24101 21 22974 3 259.8 1 > ------Sequential Create------ --------Random Create-------- > -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- -Create-- --Read--- -Delete-- > files /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP /sec %CP > 16 158 1 517 91 248 2 157 1 3243 22 238 2 > > >Locally, the same test is more than twice faster. >Does someone knows if there are optimizations for gfs and nfs, other than ones found in NFS Howto ? > >Best regards, > >Olivier > >Olivier Thibault a écrit : >>Hi, >> >>Raj Kumar a écrit : >> > Hi, >> > >> > We are using GFS6.0 (no cluster suite) and NFS exports of the file system. I am getting a transfer rate of about 35MB/sec. We have a high speed SAN. Actually the transfer rate can be little higher but we attribute the slow rate to NFS itself since we see the same numbers for EXT3 also. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Raj >> > >> > >> >>Thank you for your answer. >>I am upgrading to last GFS/DLM/CMAN kernel stuff and will retry. >>I've ran bonnie++ with ext3 exported over nfs and it is really speeder even if it's not what i expected. I got about 22 MB/s (r/w). >>But i saw that nfsd was consuming a lot of CPU. The system load was 15 !! >>I've also ran test with Suse SLES9 xfs exported over nfs. I got 40MB/s, which is what aim to get with GFS ... >>I don't understand ... >> >>Is there anybody who export gfs over nfs with FC5 ? >> >>Thanks by advance >> >>Olivier >> >>>On Tue, 30 May 2006 Olivier Thibault wrote : >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>>I am testing RHCS on Fedora Core 5. >>>>I have a shared gfs volume mounted on two nodes (using clvmd and lock_dlm). >>>>Locally, everything is ok. >>>>If I export the gfs volume via nfs, i obtain *very poor* performance. >>>>For exemple, from a nfs client with dd, it take 90 seconds to create a 16 MB file !!! >>>> From the cluster's nodes, the performances a good, and i made some tests exporting xfs over nfs, and it was good too. >>>>So what's wrong with nfs+gfs ? >>>>I would be very interested to know how guys who use this have configured it, and what performances they have. >>>> >>>>Thanks for any advices. >>>> >>>>Best regards >>>> >>>>-- Olivier THIBAULT >>>>Laboratoire de Mathématiques et Physique Théorique (UMR CNRS 6083) >>>>Université François Rabelais >>>>Parc de Grandmont - 37200 TOURS >>>>Tél: +33 2 47 36 69 12 >>>>Fax: +33 2 47 36 69 56 >>>> >>>>-- Linux-cluster mailing list >>>>Linux-cluster@redhat.com >>>>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster >>> >>> >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>>-- Linux-cluster mailing list >>>Linux-cluster@redhat.com >>>https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster >> > >-- >Linux-cluster mailing list >Linux-cluster@redhat.com >https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster <a href="http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigclick.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1507191490@Middle5?PARTNER=3"><IMG SRC="http://adworks.rediff.com/cgi-bin/AdWorks/sigimpress.cgi/www.rediff.com/signature-home.htm/1963059423@Middle5?OAS_query=null&PARTNER=3" BORDER=0 VSPACE=0 HSPACE=0></a>