Re: NFS performance -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: NFS performance
From: Lukas Beeler <lukas.beeler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 23:26:40 +0200
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 23:11, James Rich<james@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

load average: 1.62, 1.38, 1.28

That is an usually high load for this machine.

Try running "vmstat 1" while the backup is running, and pay attention
to the "wa" column (IO wait). A high number in this column would
indicate a bottleneck in the IO subsystem on the Linux side.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

Re: NFS performance , James Rich

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.