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

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Justin Piszcz wrote:

Also, some people mentioned tuning, I used 8192 as the w/r size it then took 15 seconds, with 65535 it took 28 seconds.

I wonder how much faster NFS over TCP would be, or if NFS in the kernel is the problem itself?

On Linux NFS over TCP is slower than over UDP ~10%.

kloczek
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [email protected]*

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
    • From: Alan Cox <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
    • From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>
  • Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
    • From: Phil Oester <[email protected]>
  • Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
    • From: Justin Piszcz <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: Linux 2.6.16-rc1
• Next by Date: Re: first bisection results in -mm3 [was: Re: 2.6.15-mm2: reiser3 oops on suspend and more (bonus oops shot!)]
• Previous by thread: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
• Next by thread: Re: Kernel 2.6.15.1 + NFS is 4 times slower than FTP!?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]