Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:49:40 -0400
From:      Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
Cc:        Rick Macklem <rmacklem@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, =?iso-8859-1?Q?Jos=E9_Mar=EDa?= Alcaide <jose@we.lc.ehu.es>
Subject:   Re: 9-STABLE nfsd(8) does not auto-tune number of threads (error in the 9.3 Release Notes!)
Message-ID:  <20140708194940.GK1216@hub.FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <1539064411.8855953.1404848796119.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
References:  <20140708133559.GF1216@hub.FreeBSD.org> <1539064411.8855953.1404848796119.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--pfJPkqu8nAxkAh8+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:46:36PM -0400, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Glen Barber wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:06:38PM +0200, Jos=E9 Mar=EDa Alcaide wrote:
> > > One of the 9.3-RELEASE Release Notes (userland changes) states
> > > that:
> > >=20
> > > "The default number of nfsd(8) threads has been increased from 4 to
> > > (8 * N), where N is the number of CPUs as reported by sysctl -n
> > > hw.ncpu. [r262124]"
> > >=20
> > > Indeed, revision r262124
> > > (http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D262124)
> > > removes the "-n 4" option from nfs_server_flags in
> > > /etc/defaults/rc.conf.
> > >=20
> > > The change is based on the premise that nfsd(8) auto-tunes the
> > > number of threads as (8 * hw.ncpu). That auto-tuning was
> > > introduced in HEAD revision r243637 of nfsd.c
> > > (http://svnweb.freebsd.org/base?view=3Drevision&revision=3D243637),
> > > but it has not been MFC'd to 9-STABLE yet, so that release note
> > > *is not true*.
> > >=20
> > > I think that r262124 should be reverted, also removing the release
> > > note mentioned above; or alternatively bring HEAD's nfsd.c on sync
> > > with 9-STABLE (probably a bad idea just before 9.3-RELEASE).
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Reverting r262124 is also not an option at this point of the release
> > cycle.
> >=20
> > Rick, do you have any reservations to issuing an errata notice for
> > this
> > after the release?
> >=20
> Well, I think that it will generate 4 threads without the "-n 4" just like
> it does with the "-n 4", so the only issue I see is the statement in the
> release notes isn't accurate. (It doesn't seem worth reverting r262124, s=
ince
> it doesn't really affect the outcome?)
>=20
> I'd suggest just taking the statement out of the release notes.
>=20

Ok, thanks.

> rick
> ps: This change wasn't my commit, but I didn't see a problem with the
>     default changing. I have fixing the nfsd(8) man page to reflect
>     this change in default on my "to do" list.
>=20

Yeah, I realized it wasn't yours afterward :(

Thanks.

Glen


--pfJPkqu8nAxkAh8+
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=fcht
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--pfJPkqu8nAxkAh8+--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140708194940.GK1216>