On Tue, 26 Sep 2000, TTSG wrote:
Maybe a CPU % of 8-12, NFSops of 400-600. (I haven't gotten
That's nothing. I don't think the filer is to blame for the load. Cache ages?
Varies. I've seen >60, 7, etc.
I tried it on Sif. Sif went nuts with file locking. CGI's that need to do file lock seem to take FOREVER (7-10 seconds). If I change the CGI to point to a local filestore, the load goes from maybe 2.X to 6-7.X . The CPU goes 100% with an increased user and kernel.
I don't know how much time you have to spend on this, but you might try mounting a set of disk from one of your U1's to the other, to see if the problem is with NFS in general or with the filer's implementation of NFS.
Don't I just introduce another unknown, the 2nd U1s ability to serve the content? I don't have time to futz, since this is a production system, but I need to do whats necessary. I'm afraid also that making the 2nd U1 a NFS server will impact ITS performance. I'm already getting a 15-20% I/O wait outta it, which is why we are looking towards the Filer.
Thats what I figured. I need to throw 2 of them, serving 7-8Mb/s content out the front end.
Hmmm...I don't know how much cache a F720 has, but maybe you need something with more cache to serve out that much data.
I've got 4 BSDI's, each pushing 7-8Mb/s out the front, to another F720 with no hassles. If it wasn't for the fact that the BSDI dropped in and went well, I wouldn't even CONSIDER this as a solution.
What network pieces are between Thor and the F720?
Thor -> 4 ft network cable -> Cisco 2924 switch -> 8 ft network cable -> Cisco 5505 -> 6 inch network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> 200ft network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> 6 inch network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> 24 ft network cable -> RJ45/Punchdown block -> 8 ft network -> Cisco 2924 -> 8 ft network cable -> F720
200 ft of network cable? Is that legit, i.e., within the CAT5 specification?
Yea, and there aren't any collisions or symptoms of problems between the Cat5505 and remote 2924.
Also, are all the speed negotiations fixed? Many people post of bad performance which is due to either the filer or the switches being set to auto-negoatiate. Force both to be fixed.
I don't let ANYTHING in our network auto-negotiate. To me, thats a non-truth. ESPECIALLY with Sun equipment around. 8-)
NFS v2 or v3? If v3, over TCP or UDP?
You say NFS v3 over UDP. You might also try to force this to be NFS v2, just to see what happens with the locking, which seems to be the source of the bottleneck.
Maybe on the Sol 7, not 5.5.1 . I'll try V2 at some point.
You can disable v3 complete on the filer with the nfs.v3.enable option, or force a vers=2 mount with the mount command.
Until next time...
Thanks, Tuc/TTSG