Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?

[Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com>]

Now that I have 74GB raptors in both of my Linux boxes, I thought I would 
compare throughput between FTP and NFS over a gigabit network.

I am using the same kernel versions and same motherboard on both machines 
and even the same raptor hdd model.

Here are my results:

NFS, COPY 700MB FILE FROM 1 RAPTOR TO ANOTHER RAPTOR VIA GIGABIT ETHERNET:

$ cp file /remote/dst
0.02user 1.86system 0:38.07elapsed 4%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+196minor)pagefaults 0swaps

FTP, SAME

lftp> put file
733045488 bytes transferred in 10 seconds (67.38M/s)

What is wrong with NFS?

NFS options used: rw,bg,hard,intr,nfsvers=3
Is it doing some kind of weird caching?
I am using NFSv3 & XFS as the filesystem, any ideas?

I suppose I should try NFS with TCP, yes?

Thanks!

Justin.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/