Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 09:12:34 +0800 From: araujobsdport@gmail.com To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> 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: <2A998A50-C692-4EAC-A01C-79D5230566E6@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1519461744.3785300.1396312903037.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <1519461744.3785300.1396312903037.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello Rick, I have some production servers with lots of NFS users that I can make a test= too, but it will cost time and we can only verify regression, as I can't ma= ke any benchmark there! Let me check, how loaded is this server and I tell you later; if you want me= do more tests, I can do so. Best Regards. On 2014/4/1, at 8:41, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > 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. > 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;-) >=20 > 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.) >=20 > 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? >=20 > 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). >=20 > rick >=20 >> I think it=E2=80=99s also fair to say that if you=E2=80=99re 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=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?2A998A50-C692-4EAC-A01C-79D5230566E6>