From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 19 03:49:56 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFFAD1065675 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jwd@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBC28FC17 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9J3nuai032929 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 GMT (envelope-from jwd@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from jwd@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p9J3nuv8032928 for freebsd-fs@freebsd.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 GMT (envelope-from jwd) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 +0000 From: John To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20111019034956.GA8345@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Subject: nfsstats for new nfsserver X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 03:49:56 -0000 Hi Folks, I've been looking into different performance aspects of running the new nfsserver servering out zfs filesystems with 9. I've run into a nfsstat question I thought I would ask about. >From nfsstat on a system that's been up for a few hours: # nfsstat Client Info: ... deleted ... all 0. Server Info: Getattr Setattr Lookup Readlink Read Write Create Remove 1014376791 95502 1815135267 10181 8613463 6005951 0 0 Rename Link Symlink Mkdir Rmdir Readdir RdirPlus Access 240 0 0 0 0 47964 0 547155 Mknod Fsstat Fsinfo PathConf Commit 0 595932 45 0 74154 Server Ret-Failed 0 Server Faults 0 Server Cache Stats: Inprog Idem Non-idem Misses 6308 0 3852 -1448802368 Server Write Gathering: WriteOps WriteRPC Opsaved 6005951 6005951 0 The 'Misses' value is very large. When looking at the source, if I'm following the code correctly (and I might not be), would it make sense to try increasing the size of the cache, or simply disabling it? Can do either - looking for opinions. The Opsaved value being 0, would it make sense to simply disable gathering also? Last, just more of a comment, would it make sense to go ahead and treat these values as unsigned? They'll still wrap, but they would stay positive. Thanks, John