From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 19:53:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27F0816A4CE for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:53:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from freebee.digiware.nl (dsl439.iae.nl [212.61.63.187]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3F2143D45 for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:53:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Received: from [212.61.27.71] (dual.digiware.nl [212.61.27.71]) by freebee.digiware.nl (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3IJrkHL047216; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:46 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from wjw@withagen.nl) Message-ID: <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl> Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:47 +0200 From: Willem Jan Withagen User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Claus Guttesen References: <6eb82e05041500274172afd3@mail.gmail.com> <20050416122222.GA12385@totem.fix.no> <6eb82e0504160536572e068c@mail.gmail.com> <20050416183755.GB61170@xor.obsecurity.org> <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: NFS defaults for read/write blocksize....(Was: Re: 5.4/amd64 console hang) X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:53:54 -0000 Claus Guttesen wrote: >>>>By the way, I'm thinking that more frequently hang might related with >>>>large read/write block in mount_nfs -r/-w (I use 8192, original is 1024). >>> >>> >>>That's certainly possible since non-default settings don't get as much >>>testing. It would be good to get a traceback. >> >>Has it even been considered to up these values to something bigger?? > > > Read- and write-size of 32768 seems to work optimal for me: How did you come to this conclusion? What kind of workload? > nfssrv:/nfsmnt /localsrv/nfsmnt nfs > rw,tcp,intr,nfsv3,-w=32768,-r=32768 0 0 > > Nfs-server is an i386 and clients are i386 and amd64. This is in line with what the graphs suggest: Use Laaarrrrrggggeee sizes. But because of the non-significance of bonnie, I'm reluctant to accept my work as 100% proof. --WjW