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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
