fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (07/04/88)
In the referenced article, bob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
A secondary reason why I personally prefer to use NFS to
read news is because it's actually faster than using the
NNTP protocol. I have run a "local" rn and a NNTP rrn
side-by-side and rn comes up observably better in user
responsiveness and feel.
Bob, can you quantify this? In particular, I'd like to know where
NNTP is taking the hit in performance. Context switching? I'd be
surprised if you found that NNTP had significantly higher overhead
than NFS for this application. Is it just that almost all the netnews
readers in existence were written (read "optimized") for having
filesystem access, rather than for network access (and NFS hides the
details better?)?
anyone else got hard numbers?
Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edubob@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/02/88)
In article <4246@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >In article <16342@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >> >>A secondary reason why I personally prefer to use NFS to read news >>is because it's actually faster than using the NNTP protocol. I >>have run a "local" rn and a NNTP rrn side-by-side and rn comes up >>observably better in user responsiveness and feel. > >Bob, can you quantify this? In particular, I'd like to know where >NNTP is taking the hit in performance. Context switching? I'd be >surprised if you found that NNTP had significantly higher overhead >than NFS for this application. Unfortunately, no, I can't quantify this, and I have no idea at all where the hit is in the code - though see below for more specific external observations. I'd like to sit down with a profiler, but I haven't had the chance (can you tell by the lag time on this response that I've been away doing other things this summer?). The biggest delay in rrn is when following a subject thread with ^N, or when building an unread-articles subject list with =. Kill files seem to take forever, too. This implies to me that you win with local rn (or with rn reading from an NFS-mounted filesystem) because you needn't ship the whole article across the wire just to peek at the headers. If my misunderstanding of rrn's guts is showing, I'll appreciate the education I'm likely to receive :-) >Is it just that almost all the netnews readers in existence were >written (read "optimized") for having filesystem access, rather than >for network access (and NFS hides the details better?)? I think so. The show-me-part-of-an-article functions are where local filesystem access really shines. If NNTP reader clients require entire articles before they can peek at the header, then some smarter clients are in order. If local rn required that the entire article be read via NFS before its headers could be scanned, you'd likely see the performance balance tipped the other way. If the header-scanning functions like subject threading and kill files weren't part of rn, then I wouldn't notice the hit in rrn. But then, those niceties are a big reason I use rn. Again, please correct my likely misunderstandings of reader clients - but do it gently, please. -=- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!{att,pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
cmf@cisunx.UUCP (Carl M. Fongheiser) (08/04/88)
In article <19153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >The biggest delay in rrn is when following a subject thread with ^N, >or when building an unread-articles subject list with =. Kill files >seem to take forever, too. This implies to me that you win with local >rn (or with rn reading from an NFS-mounted filesystem) because you >needn't ship the whole article across the wire just to peek at the >headers. Rrn *is* pretty stupid about such things. If you're using one of the newer ones, the '=' functionality isn't too bad, because then rrn will use the XHDR extension. ^N and friends could use the same trick, but they don't, currently. Kill files could be speeded up enormously if rrn would use HEAD instead of ARTICLE to do the scanning. Rrn's biggest problem (in my opinion) is that it always scribbles down *everything* it got over the wire onto disk. I don't see any reason why rrn needs to write the whole article onto disk to do kill file processing. For that matter, it never takes advantage of the hints the NNTP server provides. The GROUP command always returns the range of articles in a newsgroup, but rrn depends on using a local (and possibly inaccurate) copy of the active file. In sum, the current rrn is an imperfect molding of a file-system based news reader onto the NNTP model. Rrn really *could* shine, but it'll take some work. Carl Fongheiser University of Pittsburgh Computing & Information Systems ...!pitt!cisunx!cmf cmf@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu cmf@pittvms.BITNET
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (08/04/88)
In article <11498@cisunx.UUCP>, cmf@cisunx (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes: >Rrn's biggest problem (in my opinion) is that it always scribbles down >*everything* it got over the wire onto disk. I don't see any reason >why rrn needs to write the whole article onto disk to do kill file >processing. Having written a comprehensive remote newsreader, the primary reason for this is quite obvious to me: it's so much easier. Doing a split head and body fetch was quite tricky to get exactly right--among other pitfalls, I had to suppress spurious(?) select(2) errors. There's also the rare possibility of a /blah blah/a:j. Well, maybe not so rare--have you bothered to read news.admin recently? Gnews doesn't support whole article searches, so this never occurs in my case. Also, Gnews does KILL processing on the fly, not all at once at the beginning. I'm in the process of rewriting Gnews internals to march down the newsgroup in the background, caching up header and body information while you're reading an article. This is tricky enough in rn--to do so asynchronously over NNTP is much more so. Personally, I'd appreciate if NNTP would allow explicit buffering. Ie, not only "body ###", but say a "bodybuffer ### 30" to grab 30 lines; the return message would tell how many lines remained to get. The all-or-nothing can be quite silly at times. Among other applications, this would permit fast implementation of KILLs based on a string within the first so many lines. >In sum, the current rrn is an imperfect molding of a file-system based >news reader onto the NNTP model. Rrn really *could* shine, but it'll >take some work. That's what I'm trying to make Gnews do. Now that the first draft of the manual is out of the way, I can dig into the internals again. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
rroot@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (08/05/88)
From article <19153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>, by bob@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield): > In article <4246@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >>In article <16342@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>>A secondary reason why I personally prefer to use NFS to read news >>>is because it's actually faster than using the NNTP protocol. I >>Bob, can you quantify this? In particular, I'd like to know where >>NNTP is taking the hit in performance. Context switching? I'd be By my understanding, NNTP goes thru TCP/IP, while NFS is a different proto alltoghether, which is optimized to transparent use of an FS over a net.. NFS seems to be a bit better at flinging the data fast (I remember comments about people bragging about how their NFS implementation could swamp the controller/software on X machine, and a solution Which ammounted to being able to tell another implementation to "SLOW DOWN (damnit!)". On the other hand, I've heard comments on how TCP/IP can be CPU intensive and hardware support might help CPUs keep up with the abilities of faster network hardware. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel {ihnp4,ubc-vision,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve or userzxcv@uofamts.bitnet
sow@eru.mt.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg) (08/05/88)
In article <11498@cisunx.UUCP> cmf@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes: |In article <19153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: |>The biggest delay in rrn is when following a subject thread with ^N, |>or when building an unread-articles subject list with =. Kill files |>seem to take forever, too. This implies to me that you win with local |>rn (or with rn reading from an NFS-mounted filesystem) because you |>needn't ship the whole article across the wire just to peek at the |>headers. | |Rrn *is* pretty stupid about such things. If you're using one of the newer |ones, the '=' functionality isn't too bad, because then rrn will use the |XHDR extension. ^N and friends could use the same trick, but they don't, |currently. Kill files could be speeded up enormously if rrn would use |HEAD instead of ARTICLE to do the scanning. This is not the NNTPs fault. I looked at it last spring and it is not trival to fix since rn stores the "Header information" as pointers to the diskfile, (sigh). The = functionality is bad put this in your .rcinit and you will se. -EXSUBJLINE="\ %(%s =\ ^\\(.................................................\\)?%1) \ %(%t=^\\(........................\\)?%1:%t)" All the problems is that rn relies a lot of diskfiles and pointers in diskfiles. Actually we miss ONE command in the NNTP protocol we can not abort a transmission of an article so in some situations it will be slower. Sven-Ove Westberg, CAD, University of Lulea, S-951 87 Lulea, Sweden. Tel: +46-920-91677 (work) +46-920-48390 (home) UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!enea!cad.luth.se!sow ARPA: sow%cad.luth.se@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (only dumb ARPA mailers) Internet: sow@cad.luth.se Bitnet: sow%cad.luth.se@sekth.bitnet
aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.) (08/09/88)
From article <1167@luth.luth.se>, by sow@eru.mt.luth.se (Sven-Ove Westberg): > In article <11498@cisunx.UUCP> cmf@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Carl M. Fongheiser) writes: > |In article <19153@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@kazoo.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: Actually I've found quite the contrary. In my environment, using NNTP is about 5 - oo (that's infinity) times fasting than using NFS. Our configuration here has the NNTP server machine on a different sub-net than the one that I log onto. When I mount the NEWS directory response time is anywhere from 1 minute to 1/2 hour. Don't know why but I would guest that the NFS udp packets take too long on the round trip forcing all kinds of retransmissions and other messy things. Back before I got NNTP up, I would start a vn running as soon as I walked in and attempt to read articles while waiting for compiles and so forth. I never did manage to catch up. With NNTP, I can read ALL my newsgroups within 1/2 hour. I was really disgusted (still am) with NFS once I found that out. Arturo Perez ComputerVision, a division of Prime primerd!cvbnet!aperez The difference between genius and idiocy is that genius has its limits.
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/11/88)
In article <166@cvbnet2.UUCP> aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.) writes: |...Our configuration here has the NNTP server machine on a different |sub-net than the one that I log onto. When I mount the NEWS |directory response time is anywhere from 1 minute to 1/2 hour. Don't |know why but I would guest that the NFS udp packets take too long on |the round trip forcing all kinds of retransmissions and other messy |things... Sounds like a severly misconfigured NFS installation. It might have been a severely overloaded gateway if you hadn't said that NNTP performs fine. |With NNTP, I can read ALL my newsgroups within 1/2 hour. I was |really disgusted (still am) with NFS once I found that out. The problem and solution don't lie in the difference between NFS and NNTP. You should be "really disgusted" (but be nice anyway :-) with whoever set up your systems, rather than with NFS. You need to spend some time looking at the retry, timeo, and retrans parameters in your client /etc/fstab entries for mounting NFS filesystems. -=- Bob Sutterfield, Department of Computer and Information Science The Ohio State University; 2036 Neil Ave. Columbus OH USA 43210-1277 bob@cis.ohio-state.edu or ...!{att,pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!bob
pope@vatican (John Pope) (08/11/88)
In article <166@cvbnet2.UUCP>, aperez@cvbnet2 (Arturo Perez Ext.) writes: > >...When I mount the NEWS directory response >time is anywhere from 1 minute to 1/2 hour. Sounds like a system configuration problem, not an NFS problem. NFS-mounting is quite a bit faster than NNTP for me, with the difference being especially noticable as the network becomes more heavily loaded. >Arturo Perez >ComputerVision, a division of Prime >primerd!cvbnet!aperez >The difference between genius and idiocy is that genius has its limits. -- John Pope Sun Microsystems, Inc. pope@sun.COM