nfs performance

Asked by g@s on 2007-05-16

Ho problemi con la condivisione file NFS (prestazioni scadenti)

Il sistema è composto:

         router 54Mbit
         storage Lacie (collegato via cavo LAN al router)
         portatile (WINDOWS/LINUX)

trasferendo un file dal portatile allo storage ho questa situazione:

         Windows (protocollo CIFS) velocità massima raggiunta LAN 54Mbit, WIRELESS 20Mbit
         LINUX (protocollo NFS) velocità massima raggiunta LAN 10Mbit, WIRELESS 3Mbit

per montare il filesystem su Linux utilizzo il seguente comando:

   sudo mount 192.168.0.120://storage/cartella /mnt/storage

Question information

Language:
Italian Edit question
Status:
Solved
For:
Ubuntu Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Solved by:
Massimo Forti
Solved:
2007-05-18
Last query:
2007-05-18
Last reply:
2007-05-18
Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #1

Grazie per la tua domanda, prova ad utilizzare:

$: sudo mount -t cifs 192.168.0.120://storage/cartella /mnt/storage

in modo da usare lo stesso protocollo di win. Grazie e ciao

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #2

Ho provato a montare il filesystem come cifs ma non cambia nulla.

grazie

Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #3

Se dietro a un firewall in linux, mi puoi postare il risultato del ping al host 192.168.0.120 fatto sia da linux che da windows. Voglio capire se è un problema di scheda oppure di protocollo. Grazie

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #4

Linux

gas@spartacus:~$ ping 192.168.0.120
PING 192.168.0.120 (192.168.0.120) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=1.51 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=1.35 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.32 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=1.73 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=1.25 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=1.42 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=1.49 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=1.74 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=1.41 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=1.59 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=1.27 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=1.70 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1.25 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=1.35 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=1.35 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=1.42 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=1.85 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=1.24 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=1.34 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=4.12 ms

--- 192.168.0.120 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19039ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.243/1.589/4.125/0.609 ms
gas@spartacus:~$

WINDOWS

Esecuzione di Ping 192.168.0.120 con 32 byte di dati:

Risposta da 192.168.0.120: byte=32 durata=1ms TTL=64

Risposta da 192.168.0.120: byte=32 durata=1ms TTL=64

Risposta da 192.168.0.120: byte=32 durata=1ms TTL=64

Risposta da 192.168.0.120: byte=32 durata=1ms TTL=64

Statistiche Ping per 192.168.0.120:

    Pacchetti: Trasmessi = 4, Ricevuti = 4, Persi = 0 (0% persi),

Tempo approssimativo percorsi andata/ritorno in millisecondi:

    Minimo = 1ms, Massimo = 1ms, Medio = 1ms

Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #5

In effetti sotto linux sei molto lento. Hai impostato il firewall sotto Linux ??? Potresti postarmi il risultato del comando lspci, voglio capire che hardware hai. Grazie

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #6

gas@spartacus:~$ lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express Memory Controller Hub (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation Mobile 945GM/PM/GMS/940GML and 945GT Express PCI Express Root Port (rev 03)
00:1b.0 Audio device: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) High Definition Audio Controller (rev 02)
00:1c.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 1 (rev 02)
00:1c.1 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 2 (rev 02)
00:1c.2 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) PCI Express Port 3 (rev 02)
00:1d.0 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #1 (rev 02)
00:1d.1 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #2 (rev 02)
00:1d.2 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #3 (rev 02)
00:1d.3 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB UHCI #4 (rev 02)
00:1d.7 USB Controller: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) USB2 EHCI Controller (rev 02)
00:1e.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 82801 Mobile PCI Bridge (rev e2)
00:1f.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporation 82801GBM (ICH7-M) LPC Interface Bridge (rev 02)
00:1f.2 IDE interface: Intel Corporation 82801GBM/GHM (ICH7 Family) Serial ATA Storage Controller IDE (rev 02)
00:1f.3 SMBus: Intel Corporation 82801G (ICH7 Family) SMBus Controller (rev 02)
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon Mobility X1400
05:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation PRO/Wireless 3945ABG Network Connection (rev 02)
07:06.0 CardBus bridge: Texas Instruments PCIxx12 Cardbus Controller
07:06.1 FireWire (IEEE 1394): Texas Instruments PCIxx12 OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394 Host Controller
07:06.2 Mass storage controller: Texas Instruments 5-in-1 Multimedia Card Reader (SD/MMC/MS/MS PRO/xD)
07:06.3 Generic system peripheral [0805]: Texas Instruments PCIxx12 SDA Standard Compliant SD Host Controller
07:08.0 Ethernet controller: Intel Corporation PRO/100 VE Network Connection (rev 02)
gas@spartacus:~$

ciao grazie

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #7

il ping che ti ho postato ieri è relativo al wireless.
Il seguente è LAN

gas@spartacus:~$ ping 192.168.0.120PING 192.168.0.120 (192.168.0.120) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.344 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.353 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.359 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=0.350 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=0.437 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=0.336 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=0.374 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=0.410 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=0.419 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=0.339 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=0.396 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=0.320 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=0.352 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=0.381 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=0.419 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=0.331 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=0.367 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=0.403 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=0.317 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=0.322 ms

--- 192.168.0.120 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 18998ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.317/0.366/0.437/0.040 ms
gas@spartacus:~$

ciao

Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #8

La risposta di 0.322 e buona. Prova a caricare il traffico con il seguente comando:

ping -l 512

così proviamo a testare la rete con pacchetti di 512 bytes. Vediamo la risposta. Fammi sapere.

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #9

ping -l 512 non funziona, ho lanciato ping -s 512 su rete WIRELESS

gas@spartacus:~$ ping -s 512 192.168.0.120
PING 192.168.0.120 (192.168.0.120) 512(540) bytes of data.
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=2.18 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=2.85 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=1.90 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=4 ttl=64 time=2.32 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=5 ttl=64 time=2.80 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=6 ttl=64 time=2.33 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=7 ttl=64 time=2.02 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=8 ttl=64 time=2.21 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=9 ttl=64 time=2.29 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=10 ttl=64 time=2.06 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=11 ttl=64 time=2.21 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=12 ttl=64 time=4.40 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=13 ttl=64 time=1.91 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=14 ttl=64 time=2.06 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=15 ttl=64 time=1.86 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=16 ttl=64 time=1.86 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=17 ttl=64 time=2.12 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=18 ttl=64 time=2.22 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=19 ttl=64 time=2.14 ms
520 bytes from 192.168.0.120: icmp_seq=20 ttl=64 time=2.05 ms

--- 192.168.0.120 ping statistics ---
20 packets transmitted, 20 received, 0% packet loss, time 19062ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.860/2.294/4.409/0.550 ms
gas@spartacus:~$

ciao

Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #10

Scusa, hai ragione. L'opzione -l è sotto win. Ogni tanto confondo. la risposta non è belle. Provo io. Comunque dimmi se usi un firewall in linux, non vorrei che abbia impostato quelche politica particolare in uscita.

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #11

Ho installato firestarter

ciao

Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #12

Su quale interfaccia hai configurato firestarter. Anch'io lo uso. Ho provato anch'io a fare il ping del mio disco di rete e ottengo gli stessi valori tuoi. Prova ad escluderlo per un attimo e rifare il test. Fammi sapere. (Sotto win usi qualche firewall). Ciao

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #13

l'interfaccia eth1(WIRELESS)
disabilitando il firewall i risultati sono circa gli stessi.
Credo che il problema non sussiste. Ho contattato DLINK e mi hanno fatto notare che la velocità che riportavo io era in byte e non in bit.
Quindi 3MB corrispondono a 24Mbit che è una velocità accettabile per un wireless 54Mbit(interferenze ecc.)

ciao
grazie

Best Massimo Forti (slackwarelife) said : #14

Quindi nessun problema. Meglio, posso chiederti di chiudere il post come hai fatto anche per l'altro. Ti ringrazio molto e buona serata.

g@s (gaspare-licari) said : #15

grazie ancora