From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 30 11:58:08 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16C9106566B for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:58:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 698B28FC0C for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:58:08 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8EAP98nk+DaFvO/2dsb2JhbABEhWitMIIJAQEBAwEBAQEgKyALBRYOCgICDRkCKQEJJgYIBwQBHASHZwULpnSSKoEviV0GhHiBGASTT4IvgRGPMYMEgTkH X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,505,1330923600"; d="scan'208";a="170075274" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 30 Apr 2012 07:58:01 -0400 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B853B3FE3; Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:58:01 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 07:58:01 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem To: Wojciech Puchar Message-ID: <1970100135.114428.1335787081556.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS - slow X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 11:58:08 -0000 Wojciech Puchar wrote: > > the server is required to do that. (ie. Make sure the data is stored > > on > > stable storage, so it can't be lost if the server crashes/reboots.) > > Expensive NFS servers can use non-volatile RAM to speed this up, but > > a generic > > FreeBSD box can't do that. > > > > Some clients (I believe ESXi is one of these) requests FILE_SYNC all > > the > > time, but all clients will do so sooner or later. > > > > If you are exporting ZFS volumes and don't mind violating the NFS > > RFCs > > and risking data loss, there is a ZFS option that helps. I don't use > > ZFS, but I think the option is (sync=disabled) or something like > > that. > > (ZFS folks can help out, if you want that.) Even using > > vfs.nfsrv.async=1 > > breaks the above. > > > thank you for answering. i don't use or plan to use ZFS. and i am > aware of > this NFS "feature" but i don't understand - even with syncs disabled, > why > writes are not clustered. i always see 32kB writes in systat > The old (default on NFSv3) server sets the maximum wsize to 32K. The new (default on 9) sets it to MAXBSIZE, which is currently 64K, but I would like to get that increased. (A quick test suggested that the kernel works when MAXBSIZE is set to 128K, but I haven't done much testing yet.) > > when running unfsd from ports it doesn't have that problem and works > FASTER than kernel nfs. But you had taken out fsync() calls, which breaks the protocol, as above. rick > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"