<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic I am using MPSS 3.2.1.  tcp in Software Archive</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028246#M40996</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using MPSS 3.2.1.&amp;nbsp; tcp_sack = 1 on the Phi already.&amp;nbsp; The host is windows, is there a setting there that I should verify? What bandwidth do you see on your cards over NFS?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 18:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>John_F_1</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2014-05-30T18:00:27Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Poor NFS performance</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028242#M40992</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;This has been a topic of discussion previously [1][2], but I haven't seen any comment from anybody at Intel regarding it: is there anything that can be done about the poor performance of NFS on the MIC? I timed copying a 500 MB file from the host over NFS and got about 20MB/s, which is far too slow to drive a native application's I/O. I was hoping for at least an order of magnitude faster, even though the PCI express bus should be able to sustain at least 2 orders of magnitude more. Can it be done?&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;What is the recommended alternative to doing I/O natively? For example, should I be using SCIF with a small application running on the host that performs the I/O for the native application? Should I be using MPI? I was hoping that with NFS I could get away with not using any cores on the host, but it appears that might not be possible.&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;[1]: &lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/382695" target="_blank"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/382695&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;P&gt;[2]: &lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/404743" target="_blank"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/404743&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 13:19:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028242#M40992</guid>
      <dc:creator>John_F_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T13:19:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I found the following post:</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028243#M40993</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I found the following post: &lt;A href="https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/building-a-native-application-for-intel-xeon-phi-coprocessors" target="_blank"&gt;https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/building-a-native-application-for-intel-xeon-phi-coprocessors&lt;/A&gt; which says "A good method for handling input and output of large data sets is to mount a folder from the host file system to the coprocessor and access the data from there." She uses the following options for mounting the NFS share:&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
	&lt;PRE&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;host:/mydir /mydir nfs rsize=8192,wsize=8192,nolock,intr 0 0&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/PRE&gt;
&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

&lt;P&gt;I added these options and I do notice a bump in the throughput (it is now around 40MB/s), but still not enough to sustain the ~200 threads required on the MIC. I also notice that doubling the rsize and wsize given above is slightly better on my machine.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 13:41:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028243#M40993</guid>
      <dc:creator>John_F_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T13:41:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>That read number (20 MB/s)</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028244#M40994</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;That read number (20 MB/s) seems to be too low. Is this on MPSS 3.x software stack ? If yes, could you c&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;heck to see whether tcp_sack gets turned off in *&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;both&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;* Phi and host. If it is, turn it *&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;STRONG style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;on&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;* to see whether it makes any difference.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;UL&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;[root] # /sbin/sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_sack&amp;nbsp; /* check its default value */&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;&lt;SPAN style="font-size: 1em; line-height: 1.5;"&gt;net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 0 &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp; /* it gets turned off */&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;[root]# /sbin/sysctl net.ipv4.tcp_sack=1&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; /* turn it on */&lt;/LI&gt;
	&lt;LI&gt;net.ipv4.tcp_sack = 1&lt;/LI&gt;
&lt;/UL&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 17:14:48 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028244#M40994</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wendy__C_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T17:14:48Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>That read number (20 MB/s)</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028245#M40995</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;(sorry - remove duplicated post as I hit submit twice)&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 17:15:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028245#M40995</guid>
      <dc:creator>Wendy__C_</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T17:15:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>I am using MPSS 3.2.1.  tcp</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028246#M40996</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I am using MPSS 3.2.1.&amp;nbsp; tcp_sack = 1 on the Phi already.&amp;nbsp; The host is windows, is there a setting there that I should verify? What bandwidth do you see on your cards over NFS?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 18:00:27 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028246#M40996</guid>
      <dc:creator>John_F_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T18:00:27Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The registry key</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028247#M40997</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;The registry key&lt;/P&gt;

&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
	&lt;P&gt;HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\SackOpts&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;

&lt;P&gt;is not present, and from the documentation I gather that the default is on.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2014 18:07:40 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Software-Archive/Poor-NFS-performance/m-p/1028247#M40997</guid>
      <dc:creator>John_F_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2014-05-30T18:07:40Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

