Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:25:57 +0500 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: How to fix the NFS/iSCSI vs TSO problem Message-ID: <5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfEmZjxxWtYO9BAg1i_k5k-eD8jR%2BmuVPZGauOdOsxdRd%2B=JA@mail.gmail.com> <1377879526.2465097.1396046676367.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Mar 31, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> wrote: > I understand your concern about add more one sysctl, however maybe we can > do something like ZFS does, if it detect the system is AMD and have more > than X of RAM it enables some options by default, or a kind of warning can > be displayed show the new sysctl option. > > Of, course other people opinion will be very welcome. Why not simply enable (conditionally compile) it in only for the x64 architecture? If you’re on a 64 bit Intel architecture machine, chances are pretty good you’re also running hardware of reasonable recent vintage and aren’t significantly HW constrained. I think it’s also fair to say that if you’re providing NFS or iSCSI services on an i386 with 512M of memory or a similarly endowed ARM or PPC system, performance is not your first and primary concern. You’re simply happy that it works at all. ;-) - Jordanhelp
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248>