From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 18 20:53:30 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 0E0B816A4CE for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:53:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com (rproxy.gmail.com [64.233.170.192]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88AE043D5A for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:53:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kometen@gmail.com) Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id a41so1141971rng for ; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=b8P4H0MviiY1Qn24Daos0s0nZmL4zQV/5RQtpABuTmL13nnnYmjA3ndLyxIM2x279BEwWIOPv7YFeiik2s6DeHL4qDK2I4dFchlAXap5sqsDsBC66XbWpmY+4x0bHMKg8eIP12JsCIgZ0H/spmwCkrXsbTZNxI4IhrF0Ix/dwmI= Received: by 10.38.59.75 with SMTP id h75mr1959547rna; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.149.53 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:53:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:53:29 +0200 From: Claus Guttesen To: Willem Jan Withagen In-Reply-To: <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <6eb82e05041500274172afd3@mail.gmail.com> <20050416122222.GA12385@totem.fix.no> <6eb82e0504160536572e068c@mail.gmail.com> <20050416183755.GB61170@xor.obsecurity.org> <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl> <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl> 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 Reply-To: Claus Guttesen 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 20:53:30 -0000 > >>>>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