From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 24 18:16:55 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 5020516A41F for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:16:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marianobe@gmx.net) Received: from postino5.prima.com.ar (postino5b.prima.com.ar [200.42.0.178]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D94743D49 for ; Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:16:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from marianobe@gmx.net) Received: (qmail 63838 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2005 18:16:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.1.2?) (mbenedettini@200.122.4.73) by postino5.prima.com.ar with SMTP; 24 Sep 2005 18:16:47 -0000 Message-ID: <4335980E.8060903@gmx.net> Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:16:46 -0300 From: Mariano Benedettini User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050425) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eric Anderson References: <15412.1126634818@www56.gmx.net> <20050922214142.N50836@zoraida.natserv.net> <43336294.2020403@centtech.com> <43345D9A.8040105@gmx.net> <433464CE.4010603@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <433464CE.4010603@centtech.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: Sat, 24 Sep 2005 18:16:55 -0000 I've found on discussion lists that some people also tested values near 80 or 100. I think I have CPU and RAM to start with a value of 50. The rsize and wsize values are both 32768. Thanks in advance, Mariano. Eric Anderson wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> > >