Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 18:58:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, onwahe@gmail.com Subject: Re: NFS calculation of max commit size Message-ID: <1730399830.175988.1313449094531.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <201108151343.14655.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday, August 07, 2011 6:47:46 pm Rick Macklem wrote:
> > A recent PR (kern/159351) noted that the following
> > calculation results in a divide-by-zero when
> > desiredvnodes < 1000.
> >
> > nmp->nm_wcommitsize = hibufspace / (desiredvnodes / 1000);
> >
> > Just fixing the divide-by-zero is easy enough, but I'm not
> > sure what this calculation is trying to do. Making it a fraction
> > of "hibufspace" makes sense (nm_wcommitsize is the maximum # of
> > bytes of uncommitted data in the NFS client's buffer cache blocks,
> > if I understand it correctly), but why divide it by
> >
> > (desiredvnodes / 1000) ??
> >
> > Maybe thinking that fewer vnodes means sharing it with fewer
> > other file systems or ???
> >
> > Anyhow, it seems to me that the formulae is bogus for small
> > values of desiredvnodes (for example desiredvnodes == 1500
> > implies nm_wcommitsize == hibufspace, which sounds too large
> > to me).
> >
> > I'm thinking that putting an upper limit of 10% of hibufspace
> > might make sense. ie. Change the above to:
> >
> > if (desiredvnodes >= 11000)
> > nmp->nm_wcommitsize = hibufspace / (desiredvnodes / 1000);
> > else
> > nmp->nm_wcommitsize = hibufspace / 10;
> >
> > Anyone have comments or insight into this calculation?
> >
> > rick
> > ps: jhb, I hope you don't mind. I emailed you first and then
> > thought others might have some ideas, too.
>
> Oh no, this is fine. A broader discussion is probably warranted. I
> honestly
> don't know what the goal is. I do think it is an attempt to share with
> other
> file systems, but I'm not sure how desiredvnodes / 1000 is useful for
> that.
> It also seems that we can end up setting this woefully low as well.
> That is,
> I wonder if we need a minimum of 10% of hibufspace so that it can
> scale
> between 10% and 90% of hibufspace (but I'm not sure what you would use
> to
> pick the scaling factor sanely). To my mind what you really want to do
> is
> something like 'hibufspace / (number of active mounts)', but that will
> not
> really work correctly unless we recalculate the value on each mount
> and
> unmount operation.
>
> --
> John Baldwin
Btw, this was done by r147280 6.5years ago, so the formula doesn't seem
to be causing a lot of grief. Also of some interest is the fact that
wcommitsize appears to have been setable on a per-mount-point-basis until
mount_nfs(8) was converted to nmount(2). { There is no nmount option to set it. }
Btw, when nm_wcommitsize is exceeded, writes become synchronous, so it affects
how much write behind happens. This, in turn, affects how bursty (is this a real
word? hopefully you get what I mean?) the write traffic to the server is.
What I'm not sure about is what happens when multiple mounts use up the entire
buffer cache with write behinds. I'll try a little experiment to see if I
can find that out. (If making it large isn't detrimental, then I tend to
agree that the above sets nm_wcommitsize very small.)
Since "desiredvnodes" will seldom be less than 1000, I'm not going to
rush to a solution.
Anyone who has insight into what this formula should be, please let us know.
rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1730399830.175988.1313449094531.JavaMail.root>