From owner-freebsd-arch Sat Sep 1 11:43:11 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [216.33.66.196]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98E4137B408 for ; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 11:43:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 7C73C81D01; Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:43:03 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 13:43:03 -0500 From: Alfred Perlstein To: John Polstra Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: AMD defaults? (was: Re: Tuning UDP for NFS) Message-ID: <20010901134303.X81307@elvis.mu.org> References: <20010831130902.A15501@nomad.lets.net> <20010831125120.O81307@elvis.mu.org> <200108312003.f7VK3k004259@vashon.polstra.com> <20010831154119.S81307@elvis.mu.org> <200109011601.f81G1tY09116@vashon.polstra.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200109011601.f81G1tY09116@vashon.polstra.com>; from jdp@polstra.com on Sat, Sep 01, 2001 at 09:01:55AM -0700 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Any AMD gurus in the house? Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > Using UDP is usually a bad idea, I would use tcp, I find that these > flags make for a decent mount point that's quite fast: > rw,tcp,intr,nfsv3,-w=32768,-r=32768 * John Polstra [010901 11:02] wrote: > In article <20010831154119.S81307@elvis.mu.org>, > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > * John Polstra [010831 15:03] wrote: > > > FreeBSD's "src/etc/amd.map" file still has "vers=2,proto=udp". Do > > > you think we should change it? > > > > I'm not familiar with amd, what implications would that have? > > > > What worries me is people using amd against a v2 server, also those > > tunables are good at tickling bugs in other NFS implementations > > (as well as ours, at least a year or two ago). So if amd is smart > > enough to downgrade then yes, otherwise perhaps just a comment to > > indicate that the person may want to use better mount options... ? > > I have the same concerns. Unfortunately I don't know enough about > NFS interoperability issues to say whether it would cause problems > or not. > > OTOH we have been moving toward giving our default configurations > better performance at the expense of a small amount of failsafe-ness. > I'm inclined to think this might be a good candidate for that trend. Since niether of us are sure, I'm reposting this to -arch in hopes of getting more feedback. Oh and don't forget 'rdirplus'. :) -- -Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org] 'Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology," start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.' To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message