X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C7FF08.98EB1DDF@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:11:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:11:19 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05B46437@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070924170312.1f4fa1d8@ripper.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
Thread-Index: Acf/B3kDGkYgQa/wQmOxgOHKz7QFYQAAMjpg
References: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05A25C3D@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05B46316@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><20070924161627.066895ed@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05B463DD@onstor-exch02.onstor.net><20070924164228.57f49f9f@ripper.onstor.net><BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05B46405@onstor-exch02.onstor.net> <20070924170312.1f4fa1d8@ripper.onstor.net>
From: "Maxim Kozlovsky" <maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com>
To: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
Cc: "Fay Chong" <fay.chong@onstor.com>,
	"Paul Hammer" <paul.hammer@onstor.com>,
	"Jonathan Goldick" <jonathan.goldick@onstor.com>,
	"Jobi Ariyamannil" <jobi.ariyamannil@onstor.com>,
	"Brian Montero" <brian.montero@onstor.com>

Don't see it here:

[root@c98r48-rhel5 ~]# dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/2/file3 bs=3D32k =
count=3D10000
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 4.79523 seconds, 68.3 MB/s
[root@c98r48-rhel5 ~]# dd if=3D/2/file3 of=3D/2/file4 bs=3D32k=20
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 6.99971 seconds, 46.8 MB/s
[root@c98r48-rhel5 ~]# dd if=3D/2/file4 of=3D/2/file5 bs=3D32k=20
10000+0 records in
10000+0 records out
327680000 bytes (328 MB) copied, 7.23644 seconds, 45.3 MB/s

Could be something else you are doing on ripper.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andy Sharp
>Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:03 PM
>To: Maxim Kozlovsky
>Cc: Fay Chong; Paul Hammer; Jonathan Goldick; Jobi Ariyamannil; Brian
>Montero
>Subject: Re: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
>
>Let me put it another way, it might mean something.  This is what I
did:
>
>ripper$ time dd if=3Dpack-406c14816730814f196d4c27449b79d97aa36519.pack
>of=3Dchewbaca bs=3D32k
>9181+1 records in
>9181+1 records out
>300870117 bytes (301 MB) copied, 3.63615 seconds, 82.7 MB/s
>
>real    0m3.690s
>user    0m0.003s
>sys     0m0.674s
>ripper$ time dd if=3Dchewbaca of=3Dapeman bs=3D32k
>9181+1 records in
>9181+1 records out
>300870117 bytes (301 MB) copied, 246.651 seconds, 1.2 MB/s
>
>real    4m6.655s
>user    0m0.000s
>sys     0m0.940s
>ripper$
>
>
>So essentially the second time, it fell off a cliff.
>
>
>
>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:52:09 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
>
>> I think this is just you, Andy:
>>
>> [root@c98r48-rhel5 ~]# time dd if=3D/2/file1 of=3D/2/file2 bs=3D32k
>> count=3D131072
>> 131072+0 records in
>> 131072+0 records out
>> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 103.266 seconds, 41.6 MB/s
>>
>> real    1m43.282s
>> user    0m0.109s
>> sys     0m7.887s
>>
>>
>>
>> >-----Original Message-----
>> >From: Andy Sharp
>> >Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:42 PM
>> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
>> >Cc: Fay Chong; Paul Hammer; Jonathan Goldick; Jobi Ariyamannil;
Brian
>> >Montero
>> >Subject: Re: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
>> >
>> >Exqueezeme?
>> >
>> >I'd give my kingdom for any of those horses: 30, 50, 60, 80 MB/s.
>> >Those differences amount to a big "so what" compared to ONE MB/s,
>> >IMHO.
>> >
>> >For instance, if my race bike can't shift out of neutral, I'm gonna
>> >want to fix that problem before I fix the top-end carburetion
>> >problem.
>> >
>> >Fay, please note the kernel version number on these Redmondhat
>> releases,
>> >even though RH kernel versions correspond very little to real kernel
>> >version numbers, at least we'd have a shotgun's difference.  For
>> >instance, I believe that RHEL3 is a 2.4 kernel, and RHEL5 is some
>> >kind of 2.6 kernel.  Most likely you can use the 'uname -r' command
>> >to show the kernel version number.
>> >
>> >Cheers,
>> >
>> >a
>> >
>> >On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:22:49 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
>> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sure, but we are not there yet. For now, we have a problem with
>> >> even running unidirectional write, so trying bidirectional test
>> >> will not give a lot of new information.
>> >>
>> >> >-----Original Message-----
>> >> >From: Andy Sharp
>> >> >Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:16 PM
>> >> >To: Maxim Kozlovsky
>> >> >Cc: Fay Chong; Paul Hammer; Jonathan Goldick; Jobi Ariyamannil;
>> Brian
>> >> >Montero
>> >> >Subject: Re: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
>> >> >
>> >> >The test that should demonstrate the problem is not two
>> >> >unidirectional tests running at the same time, but a
bidirectional
>> >> >test:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >$ time dd if=3Dchewbaca of=3Dapeman bs=3D32k
>> >> >9181+1 records in
>> >> >9181+1 records out
>> >> >300870117 bytes (301 MB) copied, 246.651 seconds, 1.2 MB/s
>> >> >
>> >> >real    4m6.655s
>> >> >user    0m0.000s
>> >> >sys     0m0.940s
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Cheers,
>> >> >
>> >> >a
>> >> >
>> >> >On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:40:01 -0700 "Maxim Kozlovsky"
>> >> ><maxim.kozlovsky@onstor.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> What exactly was this test doing? Is it single direction, or
>> >> >> bidirectional? The excel spreadsheet seems to imply that it is
>> >> >> bidirectional.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I've tried bidirectional test and got completely different
>> >> >> results with almost identical performance:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> rhel3 - read 30MB/sec write 46MB/sec,
>> >> >> rhel5 - read 29.6MB/sec write 53.1MB/s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The test that I was running:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Rh3
>> >> >>
>> >> >> time dd if=3D/1/file1 of=3D/dev/zero bs=3D32k ; skill -INT dd &
>> >> >> 86187+0 records in
>> >> >> 86187+0 records out
>> >> >>
>> >> >> real    1m27.021s
>> >> >> user    0m0.090s
>> >> >> sys     0m11.740s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> time dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/1/file2 bs=3D32k count=3D131072 ; =
skill
>> >> >> -INT dd
>> >> &
>> >> >> 131072+0 records in
>> >> >> 131072+0 records out
>> >> >>
>> >> >> real    1m28.539s
>> >> >> user    0m0.160s
>> >> >> sys     0m19.460s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> rh5:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> time dd if=3D/dev/zero of=3D/1/file2 bs=3D32k count=3D131072 ; =
skill
>> >> >> -INT dd& 131072+0 records in
>> >> >> 131072+0 records out
>> >> >> 4294967296 bytes (4.3 GB) copied, 80.8301 seconds, 53.1 MB/s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> real    1m20.834s
>> >> >> user    0m0.081s
>> >> >> sys     0m14.097s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> time dd if=3D/1/file1 of=3D/dev/zero bs=3D32k ; skill -INT dd &
>> >> >> 72297+0 records in
>> >> >> 72296+0 records out
>> >> >> 2368995328 bytes (2.4 GB) copied, 80.0069 seconds, 29.6 MB/s
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> real    1m20.023s
>> >> >> user    0m0.047s
>> >> >> sys     0m1.866s
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Couple of things:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do not post the results of running "vs stat agg" as actual
>> >> >> performance, who knows what this code is doing. For the case of
>> >> >> dd the performance can be measured directly as shown above.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With this high volume of traffic the Wireshark is lossy, you
can
>> >> >> not rely on it to tell anything about dropped packets. Look at
>> >> >> the TCP stats for the number of retransmitted packets on the
>> >> >> client and on the filer instead (which by the way was 0 in my
>> >> >> test on both rhel5 and rhel3).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In probably already doing this, but I thought I'll mention it
>> >> >> just in case - you should unmount and remount the volume on the
>> >> >> client and
>> >> vol
>> >> >> offline /vol online the volume on the filer between the tests
to
>> >> >> make sure consistent initial state is used.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Could you please create a script(s) which can be used to run
>> >> >> your test(s) so we know we are on a same page?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Max
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _____________________________________________
>> >> >> From: Fay Chong
>> >> >> Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 5:49 PM
>> >> >> To: Paul Hammer; Jonathan Goldick; Jobi Ariyamannil; Andy
Sharp;
>> >> Maxim
>> >> >> Kozlovsky
>> >> >> Cc: Brian Montero; Fay Chong
>> >> >> Subject: Wireshark Red Hat 3 and 5 NFS sequential performance
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hi,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Attached are some results from the Wireshark trace experiments
>> >> >> on NFS sequential read and write with Red Hat Linux release 3
>> >> >> and 5. The Wireshark summaries seemed to have a lot of dropped
>> >> >> packets as well
>> >> as
>> >> >> TCP acked lost segment and TCP Previous segment lost messages.
>> >> >> The traces were saved so they can be reviewed by others. Also
>> >> >> the vsvr stat agg throughput results are included. Tests were
>> >> >> run with and without the wireshark. Let's talk about reviewing
>> >> >> the data and refining the experiment.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fay
>> >> >>
>> >> >>  << File: wiresharkexp1.xls >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Fay Chong
>> >> >> Sr. Performance Engineer
>> >> >> ONStor, Inc.
>> >> >> fay.chong@onstor.com
>> >> >> 408.376.3130 (w)
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
