From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 23 21:29:08 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD3316A4CE; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:29:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from otter3.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F057043D49; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:29:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [192.168.42.24] (andersonbox4.centtech.com [192.168.42.24]) by otter3.centtech.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id j0NLT5OJ090453; Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:29:05 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <41F41711.4020907@centtech.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:28:49 -0600 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041110 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Robert Watson References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Mike Tancsa Subject: Re: NFS and SAMBA on RELENG_5 vs RELENG_4 X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 21:29:08 -0000 Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Eric Anderson wrote: > > >>I can tell you this - you must increase the number of nfsd threads to a >>high number, if you plan on really hammering the machine with nfs and >>lots of clients. I recompiled the nfsd binary with it tweaked to allow >>256 threads, and that still isn't quite enough. You need something on >>the order of: 1 per active machine using nfs * 1.10. The hard part is >>finding out how many active machines you have. I usually start with >>about 20% of my total machines mounted to the server, and then watch the >>nfsd threads cpu time. If the lowest thread is using more than about >>3-4% of the time of the 10-15th top nfsd process, then you need to bump >>up the number. That may be confusing.. > > > Hmm. So it sounds like it would make sense for us to do that in the src > tree. Is it sufficient to simply redefine MAXNFSDCNT from 20 to 256, or > do other things also need tweaking? I think it would make sense. Yes, that is the only knob to turn.. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology I have seen the future and it is just like the present, only longer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------