From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Mar 31 11:26:17 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D93C5988;
 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail.iXsystems.com (newknight.ixsystems.com [206.40.55.70])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA6D1E89;
 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:26:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (mail.ixsystems.com [10.2.55.1])
 by mail.iXsystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF397277D;
 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 04:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.iXsystems.com ([10.2.55.1])
 by localhost (mail.ixsystems.com [10.2.55.1]) (maiad, port 10024) with ESMTP
 id 63294-09; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 04:26:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.3.176] (unknown [124.195.210.70])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mail.iXsystems.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8A3072767;
 Mon, 31 Mar 2014 04:26:04 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
Subject: Re: RFC: How to fix the NFS/iSCSI vs TSO problem
From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:25:57 +0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248@mail.turbofuzz.com>
References: <CAOfEmZjxxWtYO9BAg1i_k5k-eD8jR+muVPZGauOdOsxdRd+=JA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1377879526.2465097.1396046676367.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
 <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: araujo@FreeBSD.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>,
 Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 11:26:17 -0000


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.
>=20
> Of, course other people opinion will be very welcome.

Why not simply enable (conditionally compile) it in only for the x64 =
architecture?   If you=92re on a 64 bit Intel architecture machine, =
chances are pretty good you=92re also running hardware of reasonable =
recent vintage and aren=92t significantly HW constrained.

I think it=92s also fair to say that if you=92re 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=92re =
simply happy that it works at all. ;-)

- Jordan