|Summary:||nfs is painfully slow|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Bill Chatfield <bill_chatfield>|
|Component:||nfs-server||Assignee:||Cristian Gafton <gafton>|
|Status:||CLOSED WORKSFORME||QA Contact:|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||1999-07-28 07:43:58 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Bill Chatfield 1999-06-09 03:46:36 UTC
This may be a result of changing nfs code in the kernel, but it would be nice to know what the problem is and when it is likely to be fixed. Basically, copying a file from an nfs mounted volume to a local disk (both client and server are RH6 machines) is more than 3 times slower than ftping the same file. Sometime the nfs transfer just stops for "long" periods of time. The machines I'm working with are on the same network segment on an unloaded network. I've already tried using the rsize and wsize mount options for nfs. They have little to no effect.
Comment 1 Bill Chatfield 1999-06-09 03:56:59 UTC
Forgot to make this high priority/severity. This is really critical as I am going to have to stop using my Linux workstation and go back to Windows and smb to get acceptible peformance from our Linux file server. Linux-smb-Linux does not work for mounting home directories. Permissions, file name case, and dot files are all messed up. You have to use nfs not smb for home directories.
Comment 2 Jay Turner 1999-06-29 14:43:59 UTC
Are you running knfsd? We do not see this kind of performance degradation here in the office. ------- Email Received From Bill Chatfield <firstname.lastname@example.org> 06/29/99 11:09 -------
Comment 3 Bill Chatfield 1999-07-13 22:54:59 UTC
I do believe we are running knfsd because lsmod says I have an nfs kernel module loaded. I would be happy to provide telnet access to a Red Hat person so you could see the problem where it is happening. Just let me know. BTW: Going back to using Windows was a threat I couldn't live up to.
Comment 4 Cristian Gafton 1999-07-28 07:43:59 UTC
The NFS is slow, but it should not be that painfully slow. What is the size of the file you are dealing with? On a related thing, Samba can be instrumented to preserve the case for filenames, it just does not do it by default. On a 100mbit network the NFS server will peak at about 1.9MB/sec, while ftp is able to go up to 5 or 6 MB/sec, so dependong on the type of transfers that you are doing you will see the type of slowdown that you are talking about.
Comment 5 Bill Chatfield 2000-01-07 15:30:59 UTC
I originally thought the machines in question were on the same physical subnet, but after physically tracing the ethernet wires, it appears that they are not. I suspect that this is the cause of the slowness. Does that make sense?