From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 24 16:27:00 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 7127D16A4CE; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:27:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from stewie.obfuscated.net (stewie.obfuscated.net [66.118.188.125]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD92D43D53; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:26:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from m@obmail.net) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (653259hfc120.tampabay.rr.com [65.32.59.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by stewie.obfuscated.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDEC56104; Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:26:58 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Conlen Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:26:16 -0500 To: Robert Watson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org 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: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:27:00 -0000 On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:08 PM, 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? > > Robert, I had submitted some patches about six months ago to remove the constant but my need for paid work caught up with me and I didn't have time to follow up with the commiter. The problem is that some functions (interrupt handlers for example) need to know the length of the array when they get called. My solution was to allocate the array of nfsd processes then call the and use varargs pass the value of -d and the location of the array to them. Doesn't really make sense to me to have a statically compiled value at all. Since I'm dealing with NFS performance issues again I can dig this stuff up and resubmit it if your interested.