Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:10:35 -0500 From: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE? Message-ID: <CABXB=RRP=N5_sOQrhov_3WVHd3awRjT4-oqd-BUrKgmPPk6fpg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <58591523.15519962.1390533482068.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <CABXB=RR5NgRpqXA8XQDks3HhxC6QQW3aG%2BsH4BUxFL7kbFuJ_g@mail.gmail.com> <58591523.15519962.1390533482068.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > I didn't mention this before, but using UFS will give you more realistic > results than using mfs, since mfs would never be used for a real NFS > server and never gets tested as an exported NFS file system. That's my mistake; I said "mfs" but what I meant was: $ sudo mdconfig -a -t swap -s 2g md0 $ sudo newfs -U /dev/md0 /dev/md0: 2048.0MB (4194304 sectors) block size 32768, fragment size 4096 using 4 cylinder groups of 512.03MB, 16385 blks, 65664 inodes. with soft updates super-block backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at: 192, 1048832, 2097472, 3146112 $ sudo mount /dev/md0 /mnt $ cat /etc/exports /mnt -alldirs -maproot=root 172.20.20.166 172.20.20.168 172.20.20.169 So it absolute is UFS, just backed by RAM, and I just forgot that "mfs" is only properly used to refer to that read-only memory blob filesystem used for miniroots. Sorry for any confusion. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABXB=RRP=N5_sOQrhov_3WVHd3awRjT4-oqd-BUrKgmPPk6fpg>