From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 17 17:46:22 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1DDD16A400 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:46:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca) Received: from ox.eicat.ca (ox.eicat.ca [66.96.30.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B9243D46 for ; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:46:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dgilbert@daveg.ca) Received: by ox.eicat.ca (Postfix, from userid 66) id 9A11815C41; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:46:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by canoe.dclg.ca (Postfix, from userid 101) id 235C54AC4B; Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:46:15 -0400 (EDT) From: David Gilbert MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17475.54375.95109.55657@canoe.dclg.ca> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:46:15 -0400 To: Francisco Reyes In-Reply-To: References: <17475.43946.264571.52593@canoe.dclg.ca> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under 21.4 (patch 19) "Constant Variable" XEmacs Lucid Cc: FreeBSD ISP , David Gilbert Subject: Re: NFS optimization X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:46:23 -0000 >>>>> "Francisco" == Francisco Reyes writes: Francisco> What would be a good way to determine how many nfsd Francisco> proccesses one should have? I erred in the side of caution Francisco> since had to literally through an NFS setup into production Francisco> without been able to do much testing. Set 35 processes. My Francisco> busiest nfsd are: 250 hours 50 " 24 " 11 " 7 " 4 " 3 " 2 " Francisco> 1 " Francisco> The rest are under 1 hour. Does that mean that I should be Francisco> ok with 10 processes? Roughly, yes. You'll see NFSd's normally decline exponentially with an inflection point. If your machine is completely dedicated to NFS, you probably want to run lots. The overhead of extra NFSd processes is fairly small. If you rarely do NFS, the default of 4 may even be overkill. Consider that if you are "out" of nfsd's, the penalty is increased latency for some small number of transactions that wait for an nfsd to become available.. Even if you have tonnes of NFSd processes, if disk is a limiting factor, more nfsd's won't speed the process. Something that most peoople don't consider is that the number of NFSd process can balance the concurrency of NFS clients against local disk requirements. If, say, you run a busy database on the NFS server, you may want run fewer NFSd process to increase the disk bandwidth resources available to the database. Francisco> To kill the least active ones, I just "kill" them? or is Francisco> there a better way to restart the whole nfs server side? I rarely 'kill' an nfsd. Always thought that was bad. Killing any nfsd is equivalent. If you kill one that is further up the queue, the ones later in the queue move up (AFAIK). Still... I always change the boot parameters and leave the processes currently running when I tune the number of nfsd's. >> trafshow will more quickly give you a handle on the traffic per >> client. Francisco> Thanks much. I see two versions in the port. Trafshow and Francisco> trafshow3. Which one you recommedd? I am currently running version 5.2.3 ... which is pretty fancy. I assume the port without the suffix installs version 5. Both versions will give you the required information, but trafshow 5 is much cooler. Dave. -- ============================================================================ |David Gilbert, Independent Contractor. | Two things can be | |Mail: dave@daveg.ca | equal if and only if they | |http://daveg.ca | are precisely opposite. | =========================================================GLO================