Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 20:41:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: How to fix the NFS/iSCSI vs TSO problem Message-ID: <1519461744.3785300.1396312903037.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248@mail.turbofuzz.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jordan Hubbard wrote: >=20 > On Mar 31, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> > wrote: >=20 > > 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. >=20 > Why not simply enable (conditionally compile) it in only for the x64 > architecture? If you=E2=80=99re on a 64 bit Intel architecture machine, > chances are pretty good you=E2=80=99re also running hardware of reasonabl= e > recent vintage and aren=E2=80=99t significantly HW constrained. >=20 I'm actually typing this on a single core amd64 with 2Gbytes of RAM, so I think enabling it only for both 64bits and at least some # of Gbytes of RAM would be better. (I agree that most amd64s will be relatively big machines, but not all;-) My biggest problem is that I have no way of testing this on a fairly big amd64 server at this time and I'd be a lot more comfortable committing a patch that has been tested this way. (I realize that Marcelo has been running it for his benchmarks and that's a good start, but it isn't the same as a heavily loaded server.) I notice that Alexander is on the cc list and I've added Garrett, since those are the two guys that have been doing a bunch of server testing (and my thanks go to them for this). Maybe they will have a chance to test this patch on a heavily loaded server? Since I do want to test/debug the if_hw_tsomaxseg patch I have, I plan on inquiring to see if I can use something like the netperf cluster for this testing (in a couple of weeks when I get home). rick > I think it=E2=80=99s also fair to say that if you=E2=80=99re providing NF= S 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=E2=80=99re simply happy that it works at all. ;-) >=20 > - Jordan >=20 >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1519461744.3785300.1396312903037.JavaMail.root>