[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: NFS ...

> * Performance could be better. A few hundred kB/s should be possible on a
> not to busy 10MBit network, should it? I often only saw 40kB/s, but the
> server machine was slow (486-100), too. Now with P-150, I see 100kB/s
> between two Linux systems, which is still a little low, isn't it?

Performance definitely should be _much_ better. 486DX4/100 is fast
enough machine for such tricks. Link is 100Mbit ethernet, everything
is loaded.

Tests are done with various big files (>1.5Meg). Speeds are in K/sec

Server 2.0.X, client 2.0.X

server pentium/100, client pentium/100: 3700 (cache-cold), 5400
(cache-hot), 4100 (cache-cold), 4400 (cache-hot)

server pentium/100, client pentium/100: 1186 [bogus because already in
clients cache?], 320 (cache-cold)

Oops, oops, nfs performance is really bad.

The best software in life is free (not shareware)! Pavel
GCM d? s-: !g p?:+ au- a--@ w+ v- C++@ UL+++ L++ N++ E++ W--- M- Y- R+

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.084 / U:5.724 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site