From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Mar 15 13:53:24 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24FBD0B; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:53:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0A751C9; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:53:23 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqEEAGAmQ1GDaFvO/2dsb2JhbABDiDi8ZYICdIIqAQEBBAEBASArIAsbGAICDRkCKQEJJgYIBwQBHASHcwywG5JwgSOBKosYfDQHgi2BEwOUHYI+gR+PY4MmIDKBBTU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,850,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="21377539" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 15 Mar 2013 09:53:21 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA5C9B3F15; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 09:53:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Andre Oppermann Message-ID: <2090268844.3936361.1363355601938.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <514324E8.30209@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.201] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:53:24 -0000 Andre Oppermann wrote: > Hi Rick, all, > > is there a plan to decide for one NFS implementation for FreeBSD 10.0, > or to keep both around indefinately? > > I'm talking about: > oldNFS in sys/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3 > newNFS in sys/fs/{nfs, nfsclient, nfsserver} NFSv2+NFSv3+NFSv4 > > NewNFS supports newer NFS standards and seems to have proven itself in > some quite heavy traffic environments. > > Is there any reason to keep oldNFS around other than nostalgic? > I was planning on asking the "collective" that question at some point. I think the newNFS works well enough that it can become the only NFS in the kernel for 10.0, but I don't see that as my decision. I am only aware of 2 possible regressions of the new one w.r.t. the old one: - A performance issue for the new server when under heavy NFS over TCP load, where there is excessive contention on a single mutex, etc. - I think we now have a patch that resolves this, which is being tested by Garrett Wollman. If testing goes well and a refined version of the patch makes it into head, this should be resolved. - A few sites have run into performance problems for the new NFS client, that were a result of it using a larger default I/O size (64K vs 32K for the old one). I believe the performance problem was related to network interface/driver issues for the larger 64K+ RPC messages. This can be dealt with 2 ways: - Leave it as it is now and then any site with this problem will need to use rsize=32768,wsize=32768 mount options to avoid it. OR - Modify the new client so that it uses 32K by default instead of the size specified by a server. (Most servers specify 64K or larger these days. FreeBSD is currently at 64. Solaris is 256K and allows 1Mbyte. So, I was going to ask the question. Maybe now is the time. Any comments w.r.t. removing the oldNFS from the kernel for 10.0 would be appreciated, rick > -- > Andre > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"