Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 22 Aug 1999 17:36:39 +0100 (BST)
From:      Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com>
To:        Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>
Cc:        "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com>, Steve Ames <steve@cioe.com>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Async NFS exports?
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908221735330.72739-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
In-Reply-To: <199908202032.NAA64957@apollo.backplane.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:

> :> Just to be clear... I am wondering if mounting (on the NFS _server_) a
> :> partition (that is exportable) as async will have any performance 
> :> benefits to the NFS clients?
> :
> :As a first guess, probably not unless you have a large number of active
> :clients.  Any modern hard disc will outperform ethernet/fast ethernet,
> :especially for larger read/writes.  For large numbers of smaller
> :operations, or when there is a large number of simultaneous outstanding
> :requests from clients, maybe.  I'd say watch the disc itself (iostat is
> :your friend), and if it's pegged (especially large numbers of tps) async
> :might buy you some increase.
> :-- 
> :Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)     |    fullermd@over-yonder.net
> 
>     Not much if at all, whether you have a large number of clients or not,
>     at least if you are using NFSv3 mounts.
> 
>     The reason is due to the way NFSv3 issues writes.  NFSv3 issues a 
>     write but no longer assumes that the write has been synced to the 
>     server's disk as of when the reply comes back.  Instead it keeps the
>     buffer around and does a later commit rpc to do the sync, presumably
>     long after the server has already synced the data. 
> 
>     So, effectively, all NFSv3 writes are async insofar as the client's 
>     buffer cache is able to keep abrest of the write-rate.
> 
>     Hmm, interesting.  I see another optimization I can do to fix the
>     buffer cache saturation case in CURRENT on the client.  The COMMIT rpc's
>     aren't being issued async.

You need to track the return value of the commit so that you can detect
server reboots and sync-write the data again. If you change to async, make
sure that you still keep this part - its essential to the protocol.

--
Doug Rabson				Mail:  dfr@nlsystems.com
Nonlinear Systems Ltd.			Phone: +44 181 442 9037




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9908221735330.72739-100000>