20 Jul
1999
20 Jul
'99
1:22 p.m.
I don't have the answer, but am asking (begging, pleading? :) that if you find anything, _please_ share it. We've had a Sun E3000 with an ATL jukebox as our backup server for over a year now using NFS to backup 6 NetApps (varying F330 - F540) over a private 100Mb ethernet. We've been getting similar performance and haven't been able to determine why. Anything you come up with would probably be very helpful. Thanks!
--
Gordon Keegan, M10-10 Phone: (508) 261-4696
Motorola ING Fax: (508) 261-5757
20 Cabot Boulevard
Mansfield, MA 02048 email: lgk011@dma.isg.mot.com
> In article slrn7oukr6.f48.chris@cecil.muscat.com, Chris Good wrote:
> >I've just got a brand new u450 4x400MHz 4Gb ram. Still can't get more than
> >1.7mb/s off the filer.
>
> OK, I've put a load more options in /etc/system on the sun as suggested
> by andrew bond and others. The network checks out, everything 100mb-FD
> still only get around 1.5mb/s for sequential reads.
> While doing this filer is:
> 21% 261 9 0 715 1111 1014 850 0 0 7
> 24% 258 9 0 707 1223 1252 881 0 0 7
> 28% 333 8 0 708 1765 1649 861 0 0 2
> 25% 298 8 0 689 1483 1330 670 0 0 2
> 28% 296 8 0 818 1355 1822 1019 0 0 2
>
> Interestingly if I do large numbers of random reads (32 streams of
> 8k random reads) I can max the filer out, around 6mb/s disk reads
> and 97% cpu usage. This looks to me like the network is ok but something
> subtly odd is going on somewhere.
> any smart ideas?
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Good - Muscat Ltd. The Westbrook Centre, Milton Rd, Cambridge UK
> Phone: 01223 715006 Mobile: 07801 788997
> http://www.muscat.com
>