Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:53:47 +0200
From:      Willem Jan Withagen <wjw@withagen.nl>
To:        Claus Guttesen <kometen@gmail.com>
Cc:        Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>
Subject:   Re: NFS defaults for read/write blocksize....(Was: Re: 5.4/amd64 console hang)
Message-ID:  <4264104B.2030600@withagen.nl>
In-Reply-To: <b41c755205041801433fad9c65@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <6eb82e05041500274172afd3@mail.gmail.com> <20050416122222.GA12385@totem.fix.no> <6eb82e0504160536572e068c@mail.gmail.com> <20050416183755.GB61170@xor.obsecurity.org>	 <4262CFBF.4090709@withagen.nl> <b41c755205041801433fad9c65@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Claus Guttesen 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.
>>
>>Has it even been considered to up these values to something bigger??
> 
> 
> Read- and write-size of 32768 seems to work optimal for me:

How did you come to this conclusion? What kind of workload?

> nfssrv:/nfsmnt  /localsrv/nfsmnt   nfs   
> rw,tcp,intr,nfsv3,-w=32768,-r=32768   0    0
> 
> Nfs-server is an i386 and clients are i386 and amd64.

This is in line with what the graphs suggest:
	Use Laaarrrrrggggeee sizes.
But because of the non-significance of bonnie, I'm reluctant to accept my work 
as 100% proof.

--WjW



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4264104B.2030600>