Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am using tiobench to test performance of an NFS mounted volume, and notice that Sequential Reads are much slower than Random Reads. This isn't the behavior when I run the same test on the disk mounted locally.

Here is a little graph, with NFS in red and sequential reads on the left:

Hosted by

I am exporting the volume on the server like this

/export *.internal(no_subtree_check,rw,no_root_squash)

and mounting with this:

mount -o hard,intr,async,noatime,nodiratime,noacl $NFS_SERVER:/export /nfs 

Additionally I am doing all this in amazon EC2, exporting an EBS volume with the XFS file system (redundant, I know).

I have tried using jumbo frames and various other mount options, but none seem to have much effect.

Thanks for any clues.

share|improve this question

How many times did you run each test? IO throughput tends to be fairly random on EC2 due to over-sharing of resources. Unless you ran each test at least 4 times, I don't know that your comparison results mean anything other than timing of shared loads.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.