From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 23 20:26:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A1DA16A41F for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:26:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from mh1.centtech.com (moat3.centtech.com [207.200.51.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B40F743D76 for ; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:25:52 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Received: from [10.177.171.220] (neutrino.centtech.com [10.177.171.220]) by mh1.centtech.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j8NKPpPA000412; Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:25:51 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from anderson@centtech.com) Message-ID: <433464CE.4010603@centtech.com> Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 15:25:50 -0500 From: Eric Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050914 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mariano Benedettini References: <15412.1126634818@www56.gmx.net> <20050922214142.N50836@zoraida.natserv.net> <43336294.2020403@centtech.com> <43345D9A.8040105@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <43345D9A.8040105@gmx.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.82/1098/Thu Sep 22 15:57:50 2005 on mh1.centtech.com X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Francisco Reyes , freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: High load average mail server 5.3-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 20:26:01 -0000 Mariano Benedettini wrote: > Thanks for all the replies. It's not a HD problem. > On monday I'll increase the number of nfsd processes and the number of > nfsiod on the client, setting both to 50, > I think that the nfs performance will be much better :-) 50 nfsiod's may be a bit overkill, but you should experiment to find out. You should also increase the rsize and wsize parameters on the mount options for better efficiency. Eric > Eric Anderson wrote: > >> Francisco Reyes wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005, mariano benedettini wrote: >>> >>>> 91.3% idle >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> CPU is not the problem. :-) >>> >>> >>>> Mem: 1599M Active, 1704M Inact, 311M Wired, 189M Cache, 112M Buf, >>>> 14M Free >>>> Swap: 2023M Total, 184K Used, 2023M Free >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Swap is not the problem. >>> >>> >>> Do >>> vmstat 10 >>> >>> Watch the output. >>> In particular look at the first 3 columns. >>> procs >>> r b w >>> 1 1 0 >>> 0 1 0 >>> 1 1 0 >>> >>> The left most column is CPU, the second column is disk IO. >>> >>> If you have a number in the "b" column and it never hits 0 you have >>> an I/O problem. You HDs are not catching up. >>> >>> If you are using NFS and the "b" colun is not high and hits 0 >>> some/all the time then the bottleneck is either the nfs connection or >>> the nfs server. >>> >>> For example I have some servers that the "b" column would be between >>> 20 and 60 for a while. I am currently working on removing some of the >>> load of the machine. In my case more memory would help, but the >>> computer vendor we bought the machine from has sent us the wrong >>> memory 3 TIMES!! >> >> >> >> Also, if it is an NFS server, one should check the cpu times on the >> nfsd processes. I've found that many times there aren't enough nfsd >> processes to take the load from many clients. Increasing the number >> (double it) often helps this. The max in 5.3 is 20, but you can >> easily change it and get around it. >> >> Eric >> >> >> >> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------