Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2014 16:10:01 +0200 From: Marek Salwerowicz <marek_sal@wp.pl> To: Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gerrit_K=FC?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?hn?= <gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS over LAGG / lacp poor performance Message-ID: <535A6CB9.10107@wp.pl> In-Reply-To: <4E7A280CACC84910A3DE068085976E30@multiplay.co.uk> References: <535A1354.2040309@wp.pl> <20140425113711.e7c7d1c2.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <535A482E.1030106@wp.pl> <20140425140123.a76c18f9.gerrit.kuehn@aei.mpg.de> <535A5268.100@wp.pl> <8247FE6336414E1F97ADA561D0680097@multiplay.co.uk> <535A5DD9.9060206@wp.pl> <AC1233D368D94519BB59B484D6F385C0@multiplay.co.uk> <535A69CE.9010800@wp.pl> <4E7A280CACC84910A3DE068085976E30@multiplay.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
W dniu 2014-04-25 16:02, Steven Hartland pisze: > We find that large numbers of queues causes high interrupt issues > however at a guess you did this to enable the machine to boot with > all nics due to lack of auto mbuf tuning in 9.x. > > I'd go with ~2 queues per nic. Yes, probably you're right as the modification date points to the time period when I turned on the LAGG As I understand, on 10.x it's fixed and having more queues results in better performance? As far as I will have faster transfer between storage1 and storage2, I'd plan to upgrade 9.x to 10.x Cheers, Marek
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?535A6CB9.10107>