X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C7FF05.EB7CCBB6@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Mon, 24 Sep 2007 15:52:09 -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 15:52:09 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E05B46405@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070924164228.57f49f9f@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/BJJyK98BtEeRQIm2gztdGbyfKAAAMJpA
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>
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>

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)
>> >>
>> >>
