Re: NFS and SAMBA on RELENG_5 vs RELENG_4

From: Michael Conlen (m_at_obmail.net)
Date: 01/24/05

  • Next message: Nick Pavlica: "FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion"
    Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:26:16 -0500
    To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>
    
    

    On Jan 23, 2005, at 4:08 PM, Robert Watson wrote:

    > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Eric Anderson wrote:
    >
    >> I can tell you this - you must increase the number of nfsd threads to
    >> a
    >> high number, if you plan on really hammering the machine with nfs and
    >> lots of clients. I recompiled the nfsd binary with it tweaked to
    >> allow
    >> 256 threads, and that still isn't quite enough. You need something on
    >> the order of: 1 per active machine using nfs * 1.10. The hard part is
    >> finding out how many active machines you have. I usually start with
    >> about 20% of my total machines mounted to the server, and then watch
    >> the
    >> nfsd threads cpu time. If the lowest thread is using more than about
    >> 3-4% of the time of the 10-15th top nfsd process, then you need to
    >> bump
    >> up the number. That may be confusing..
    >
    > Hmm. So it sounds like it would make sense for us to do that in the
    > src
    > tree. Is it sufficient to simply redefine MAXNFSDCNT from 20 to 256,
    > or
    > do other things also need tweaking?
    >
    >

    Robert,

    I had submitted some patches about six months ago to remove the
    constant but my need for paid work caught up with me and I didn't have
    time to follow up with the commiter.

    The problem is that some functions (interrupt handlers for example)
    need to know the length of the array when they get called. My solution
    was to allocate the array of nfsd processes then call the and use
    varargs pass the value of -d and the location of the array to them.

    Doesn't really make sense to me to have a statically compiled value at
    all. Since I'm dealing with NFS performance issues again I can dig this
    stuff up and resubmit it if your interested.

    _______________________________________________
    freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
    http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
    To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"


  • Next message: Nick Pavlica: "FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 | Continued Discussion"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: network file systems?
      ... > between linux machines... ... I would say NFS in the *nix world and/or Samba if you have Windoze. ... > the two machines to gentoo... ... My main server is Sun Solaris, so I cannot comment on Linux NFS server ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • Re: Does there exist something like a networked filestorage
      ... number of machines. ... They might use NIS, NIS+, LDAP or something else for name ... BTW, you can have a "default" server for all user homes, and then specify ... etc.) to reside on specific other NFS servers. ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • Re: [9fans] Configuring NFS
      ... For Solaris NFS was *the* only choice. ... For Linux I have ... nfsserver but wondering what the machine 'ivy' does, ... services don't even have to be remote machines). ...
      (comp.os.plan9)
    • Re: FreeBSD 5.3 I/O Performance / Linux 2.6.10 and dragonfly
      ... [nfs]# diskinfo -tv twed0s1d ... In the not too distant future, a file server for IMAP/POP3 front ends. ... Are there better benchmarks / methods of testing that would give a more ... I was just going to run postmark on the 3 clients machines ...
      (freebsd-performance)
    • rpc-srv/tcp: nfsd: sent only -107 bytes (fwd)
      ... Currently running 64 NFS daemons. ... Kernel 2.4.21-32.0.1.EL.XFSsmp is the kernel recompiled from same ... Two NFS clients running 2.4.21-37.ELsmp, namely fnpcg, fngp-osg. ... NFS mailing list archives suggested to increase the number of NFSD, ...
      (Linux-Kernel)

  • Quantcast