Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:53:29 +0200 From: Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@withagen.nl> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: NFS defaults for read/write blocksize....(Was: Re: 5.4/amd64 console hang) Message-ID: <b41c75520504181353ca86951@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl> References: <6eb82e05041500274172afd3@mail.gmail.com> <20050416122222.GA12385@totem.fix.no> <6eb82e0504160536572e068c@mail.gmail.com> <20050416183755.GB61170@xor.obsecurity.org> <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl> <b41c755205041801433fad9c65@mail.gmail.com> <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >>>>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 10= 24). > >>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? To make a short story long ;-) Last year just after christmas I got a new storage system and had an opportunity to replace our Linux-nfs-server with FreeBSD. I searched the archives for nfs-related tuning-information, and found some links suggesting the usage of tcp rather than udp and adjusting the r/w-size. So I nfs-mounted some clients and started to copy back and forth. The december release of the (back then) current had some "server not responding" messages, but they appeared less with r/w-sizes of 32768. The copying itself was faster as well. So I upgraded (two or three times) until I had the Feb. 18'th 2004 current and the "server not responding" almost vanished. Some weeks after that the server went into production and have been rock-stable! It went down once but that was only due to a poweroutage that lasted a few hours, longest uptime was 117 days before I took it down for servermaintenance. The files are at most some MB in size (images) and some KB (thumbnails). > This is in line with what the graphs suggest: > Use Laaarrrrrggggeee sizes. And use tcp as well. regards Claus
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b41c75520504181353ca86951>