<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto">Hi<div><br></div><div>While I agree with what es already mention here and it is really spot on, I think Andi missed to reveal what is the latency between sites. Latency is as key if not more than ur pipe link speed to throughput results. <br><br><div dir="ltr">--<div>Cheers</div></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 22. Feb 2020, at 3.08, Andrew Beattie <abeattie@au1.ibm.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">Andi,<div><br></div><div>You may want to reach out to Jake Carrol at the University of Queensland,</div><div><br></div><div>When UQ first started exploring with AFM, and global AFM transfers they did extensive testing around tuning for the NFS stack.</div><div><br></div><div>From memory they got to a point where they could pretty much saturate a 10GBit link, but they had to do a lot of tuning to get there.</div><div><br></div><div>We are now effectively repeating the process, with AFM but using 100GB links, which brings about its own sets of interesting challenges.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew<br><br><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On 22 Feb 2020, at 09:32, Andi Christiansen <andi@christiansen.xxx> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Thanks for answering!</div><div><br></div><div>Yes possible, I’m not too much into NFS and AFM so I might have used the wrong term..</div><div><br></div><div>I looked at what you suggested (very interesting reading) and setup multiple cache gateways to our home nfs server with the new afmParallelMount feature. It was as I suspected, for each gateway that does a write it gets 50-60MB/s bandwidth so although this utilizes more when adding it up (4 x gateways = 4 x 50-60MB/s) I’m still confused to why one server with one link cannot utilize more than the 50-60MB/s on 10Gb links ? Even 200-240MB/s is much slower than a regular 10Gbit interface.</div><div><br></div><div>Best Regards </div><div>Andi Christiansen</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div id="AppleMailSignature" dir="ltr">Sendt fra min iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br>Den 21. feb. 2020 kl. 18.25 skrev Tomer Perry <<a href="mailto:TOMP@il.ibm.com">TOMP@il.ibm.com</a>>:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="sans-serif">Hi,</font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">I believe the right term is not multithreaded,
but rather multistream. NFS will submit multiple requests in parallel,
but without using large enough window you won't be able to get much of
each stream.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">So, the first place to look is here:
</font><a href="https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/bl1adm_tuningbothnfsclientnfsserver.htm"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/bl1adm_tuningbothnfsclientnfsserver.htm</u></font></a><font size="3"></font><font size="2" face="sans-serif"> - and while its talking about
"Kernel NFS" the same apply to any TCP socket based communication
( including Ganesha). I tend to test the performance using iperf/nsdperf
( just make sure to use single stream) in order to see what is the expected
maximum performance.</font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">After that, you can start looking into
"how can I get multiple streams?" - for that there are two options:</font><br><a href="https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/bl1ins_paralleldatatransfersafm.htm"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/bl1ins_paralleldatatransfersafm.htm</u></font></a><font size="3"></font><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">and</font><br><a href="https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/b1lins_afmparalleldatatransferwithremotemounts.htm"><font size="3" color="blue"><u>https://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/STXKQY_5.0.4/com.ibm.spectrum.scale.v5r04.doc/b1lins_afmparalleldatatransferwithremotemounts.htm</u></font></a><font size="3"></font><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif">The former enhance large file transfer,
while the latter ( new in 5.0.4) will help with multiple small files as
well.</font><br><br><br><font size="2" face="sans-serif"><br>Regards,<br><br>Tomer Perry<br>Scalable I/O Development (Spectrum Scale)<br>email: <a href="mailto:tomp@il.ibm.com">tomp@il.ibm.com</a><br>1 Azrieli Center, Tel Aviv 67021, Israel<br>Global Tel: +1 720 3422758<br>Israel Tel: +972 3 9188625<br>Mobile: +972 52 2554625<br></font><br><br><br><br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">Andi Christiansen <<a href="mailto:andi@christiansen.xxx">andi@christiansen.xxx</a>></font><br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">"<a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org">gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</a>"
<<a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org">gpfsug-discuss@spectrumscale.org</a>></font><br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">21/02/2020 15:25</font><br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif">[EXTERNAL] [gpfsug-discuss]
Spectrum Scale Ganesha NFS multi threaded AFM?</font><br><font size="1" color="#5f5f5f" face="sans-serif">Sent by:
</font><font size="1" face="sans-serif"><a href="mailto:gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org">gpfsug-discuss-bounces@spectrumscale.org</a></font><br><hr noshade=""><br><br><br><font size="3">Hi all, </font><br><br><font size="3">i have searched the internet for a good time now with
no answer to this.. So i hope someone can tell me if this is possible or
not. </font><br><br><font size="3">We use NFS from our Cluster1 to a AFM enabled fileset
on Cluster2. That is working as intended. But when AFM transfers files
from one site to another it caps out at about 5-700Mbit/s which isnt impressive..
The sites are connected on 10Gbit links but the distance/round-trip is
too far/high to use the NSD protocol with AFM. </font><br><br><font size="3">On the cluster where the fileset is exported we can only
see 1 session against the client cluster, is there a way to either tune
Ganesha or AFM to use more threads/sessions? </font><br><br><font size="3">We have about 7.7Gbit bandwidth between the sites from
the 10Gbit links and with multiple NFS sessions we can reach the maximum
bandwidth(each using about 50-60MBits per session). </font><br><br><font size="3">Best Regards </font><br><font size="3">Andi Christiansen </font><tt><font size="2">_______________________________________________<br>gpfsug-discuss mailing list<br>gpfsug-discuss at <a href="http://spectrumscale.org">spectrumscale.org</a><br></font></tt><a href="http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss"><tt><font size="2">http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss</font></tt></a><tt><font size="2"><br></font></tt><br><br><br></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></blockquote></div><BR>
Ellei edellä ole toisin mainittu: / Unless stated otherwise above:<BR>
Oy IBM Finland Ab<BR>
PL 265, 00101 Helsinki, Finland<BR>
Business ID, Y-tunnus: 0195876-3 <BR>
Registered in Finland<BR>
<BR>
</body></html>