From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 19 23:35:43 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 32966AF3 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 23:35:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F16B41616 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 23:35:42 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A2D5AwAEyFtV/95baINcg2RkgxjBcQmBVoV6ggAUAQEBAQEBAYEKhEyBCwINGQJfiD+ZJY9dpCoBAQEHAQEBAQEBGASBIYoZhDoXgyOBRQWXHYd0g2mSACOCCQEcgW4igXeBAQEBAQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.13,460,1427774400"; d="scan'208";a="211556600" Received: from muskoka.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.222]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 19 May 2015 19:35:36 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21747B41F1 for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 19:35:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 19:35:36 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: FreeBSD Filesystems Message-ID: <1556767526.41012297.1432078536125.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> Subject: Review of patch that makes NFSv4 server hash table sizing tunable MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.95.12] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.6_GA_2926 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/7.2.6_GA_2926) X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 23:35:43 -0000 I think the subject line says it. There is a patch.. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D2596 which makes the hash table sizes for the NFSv4 server tunable. It does not change the default sizes of the hash tables and, since these tables are only used by NFSv4, should have no effect on NFSv3. I do not believe there is sufficient experience with the NFSv4 server under heavy client load to autotune these hash tables, but hopefully tunable hash table sizing will provide further experience/testing of different sizes. Testing of a single client did not show that larger tables had any significant effect on performance, but a server handling many NFSv4 clients may need larger tables. Please review/comment on this patch, rick