Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 23:18:28 +0100 From: Bernard Dugas <bernard@dugas-family.org> To: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org, vince@unsane.co.uk Subject: Re: Optimising NFS for system files Message-ID: <495A9E34.6080009@dugas-family.org> In-Reply-To: <495A9432.5070401@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20081216094719.EDCEE1065675@hub.freebsd.org> <495930E4.1030501@dugas-family.org> <20081229230115.F68805@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <495A8D31.8060406@dugas-family.org> <495A9432.5070401@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman wrote: > It's 'mtu NNNN' not '-mtu NNNN' I'm confused, thanks so much ! There was no option without - in my old unix time ;-) Thanks to you, it seems that my max mtu is 9216 on em : client9# ifconfig em1 mtu 9216 client9# ifconfig em1 mtu 9217 ifconfig: ioctl (set mtu): Invalid argument Max mtu is changing on re : nfsserver# ifconfig re0 mtu 1504 nfsserver# ifconfig re0 mtu 1505 ifconfig: ioctl (set mtu): Invalid argument But another re accept 7422 : client6# ifconfig re0 mtu 7422 client6# ifconfig re0 mtu 7423 ifconfig: ioctl (set mtu): Invalid argument It seems that only testing can give the limit, this is not documented. Best regards, -- Bernard DUGAS Mobile +33 615 333 770
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?495A9E34.6080009>