[tech] (fwd) Re: Sun Filesystem Performance

[mustang at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au_no.spam.please_]

-- forwarded message --
Path: news.uwa.edu.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.mpx.com.au!nsw.nnrp.telstra.net!news.syd.connect.com.au!newsfeed.zip.com.au!the-fly.zip.com.au!not-for-mail
From: force <forcenoube at zipworld.com.au>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin
Subject: Re: Sun Filesystem Performance
Date: 11 Nov 1999 02:05:15 GMT
Organization: Zip World/Pacific Internet
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <80d88r$fj$1 at the-fly.zip.com.au>
References: <uk2W3.27$Xo.244 at news-server.bigpond.net.au> <80d774$j0p$1 at carlton.cubbyhole.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: zipperii.zip.com.au
X-Trace: the-fly.zip.com.au 942285915 499 203.12.97.87 (11 Nov 1999 02:05:15 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news at zipworld.com.au
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Nov 1999 02:05:15 GMT
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990517 ("Psychonaut") (UNIX) (Linux/2.2.12 (i686))
Xref: news.uwa.edu.au comp.sys.sun.admin:136697

Werner <werner at cubbyhole.com> wrote:

: You mention "file server", I'll assume you mean NFS?  If so, I believe Linux's
: NFS also does does asynchrous writes vs Solaris's synchronous writes.

Solaris' NFS daemon actually works unlike Linux. 

As for performance, in the testing I've found an Ultra10/128Mb RAM, 
49GB RAID5 array is approxmiatly 10-20 times faster NFS server Linux clients 
than a pII-450Mhz/256Mb RAM, 36GB (two 18GB U2W drives).

The Solaris box would have a load < 0.5, the Linux box would have a load > 4.0.
Majority of it in rpc services (not I/O wait). Yes, I was using 2.2.X, 
no, it's not the RAID that's speeding up the Solaris box.

-- 
Cheers.
-- end of forwarded message --

-- 
/  David Manchester <mustang at ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au>  [TDH]  Netware/UNIX droid. \
Tell someone who's interested, tell someone who can keep their lunch digested
Tell someone who wants your conversation, tell someone who doesn't regard you
\as an argument for compulsory sterilisation." [TISM], `How Do I Love Thee?'/