From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 19 12:26:17 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24C1716A4CE for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:26:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [204.156.12.53]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D720543D53 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:26:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7637246B08; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 07:26:16 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:24:46 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Jeremie Le Hen In-Reply-To: <20050218105908.GV82324@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: David Rice cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org cc: Claus Guttesen Subject: Re: High traffic NFS performance and availability problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Performance/tuning List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 12:26:17 -0000 On Fri, 18 Feb 2005, Jeremie Le Hen wrote: > > You could try to cvsup to the latest RELENG_5 on > > client and server. Are you using udp? Try switching to > > tcp if not, may not apply to 4.x. > > AFAIK, RELENG_4 has a very robust NFS implementation. I believe that > switching the client from 4.x to 5.x is a waste of time in the idea of > improving NFS performance, but maybe I'm wrong. I think leaving the 4.x clients in a known configuration and just varying the server configurations the right starting point. Let's try tracking the server 5.x stability/performance first, then look into the client 4.x crash reports. Robert N M Watson