Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 8 Jul 2014 15:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
To:        Glen Barber <gjb@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Rick Macklem <rmacklem@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, =?utf-8?Q?Jos=C3=A9_Mar=C3=ADa?= 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:  <1539064411.8855953.1404848796119.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20140708133559.GF1216@hub.FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Glen Barber wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 03:06:38PM +0200, Jos=C3=A9 Mar=C3=ADa Alcaide wr=
ote:
> > 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, sin=
ce
it doesn't really affect the outcome?)

I'd suggest just taking the statement out of the release notes.

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.

> Glen
>=20
>=20



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1539064411.8855953.1404848796119.JavaMail.root>