Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:10:04 +0200 From: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@withagen.nl> To: Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@withagen.nl> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: NFS defaults for read/write blocksize....(Was: Re: 5.4/amd64 console hang) Message-ID: <4262D0AC.4000202@withagen.nl> In-Reply-To: <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl> References: <6eb82e05041500274172afd3@mail.gmail.com> <20050416122222.GA12385@totem.fix.no> <6eb82e0504160536572e068c@mail.gmail.com> <20050416183755.GB61170@xor.obsecurity.org> <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Willem Jan Withagen wrote: > Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>> By the way, I'm thinking that more frequently hang might related with >>> large read/write block in mount_nfs -r/-w (I use 8192, original is >>> 1024). >> >> >> >> That's certainly possible since non-default settings don't get as much >> testing. It would be good to get a traceback. Sorry for the typos. > Has it even been considered to up these values to something bigger?? even == ever > Reason I ask, is since some discussions from a year ago tempted me to do > some (non-scientific) NFS performance testing. > (http://witahgen.dyndns.org/FreeBSD/nfs-performance/) make that: http://withagen.dyndns.org/FreeBSD/nfs-performance/ > Ever since then I'm of the opinion that sizes of read/write should be at > least 8K, or bigger depending on the data. > > And yes, I'm aware that bonnie can hardly be considered a serious > benchmark tool. But I would think that the results would warant at least > this change. > > I no longer have some of the hardware, so redoing this test with > something like 'make buildworld' is not really possible. But I'm looking > into getting again a series of older boxes to run some more tests on. --WjW
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4262D0AC.4000202>