Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 23:33:59 +0100 From: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> To: Larry Vaden <vaden@texoma.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: best current practice re: number of NFS servers Message-ID: <20020415223359.GA46835@lanczos.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020415140823.05130eb0@mail1.texoma.net> References: <000f01c1e493$2b67e880$265c27d4@evrocom.net> <000f01c1e493$2b67e880$265c27d4@evrocom.net> <5.1.0.14.2.20020415140823.05130eb0@mail1.texoma.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 02:16:57PM -0500, Larry Vaden wrote: > root 69 0.0 0.0 364 196 ?? Is 1:52PM 0:00.00 nfsd: master > root 71 0.0 0.0 356 188 ?? S 1:52PM 0:00.22 nfsd: server > root 72 0.0 0.0 356 188 ?? I 1:52PM 0:00.00 nfsd: server > root 73 0.0 0.0 356 188 ?? I 1:52PM 0:00.00 nfsd: server > root 74 0.0 0.0 356 188 ?? I 1:52PM 0:00.00 nfsd: server It looks like only the second nfsd has done any work (note the 0:00.22 time), so I don't think you need any more nfsds at the moment. Keep an eye on their CPU usage and see how many of them are actually getting used - that should give you a reasonable idea of how many to run. I've included the equivelent output from a busy NFS server we have (up for 80 days). We could possibly do with 1 more nfsd on this machine, but we're not seeing any performance problems. David. root 199 0.3 0.0 356 56 ?? S 25Jan02 3142:36.14 nfsd: server root 200 0.0 0.0 356 56 ?? S 25Jan02 373:45.14 nfsd: server root 201 0.0 0.0 356 56 ?? S 25Jan02 38:55.37 nfsd: server root 202 0.0 0.0 356 56 ?? I 25Jan02 7:48.41 nfsd: server To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020415223359.GA46835>