Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 16:25:57 +0500 From: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@mail.turbofuzz.com> To: araujo@FreeBSD.org Cc: FreeBSD Filesystems <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: How to fix the NFS/iSCSI vs TSO problem Message-ID: <5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248@mail.turbofuzz.com> In-Reply-To: <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAOfEmZjxxWtYO9BAg1i_k5k-eD8jR%2BmuVPZGauOdOsxdRd%2B=JA@mail.gmail.com> <1377879526.2465097.1396046676367.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> <CAOfEmZhUtUhX_OOGV6R4ogTJPTL0cEPGDv3WgPM2M3hiPs9mxQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mar 31, 2014, at 8:53 AM, Marcelo Araujo <araujobsdport@gmail.com> = wrote: > I understand your concern about add more one sysctl, however maybe we = can > do something like ZFS does, if it detect the system is AMD and have = more > than X of RAM it enables some options by default, or a kind of warning = can > be displayed show the new sysctl option. >=20 > Of, course other people opinion will be very welcome. Why not simply enable (conditionally compile) it in only for the x64 = architecture? If you=92re on a 64 bit Intel architecture machine, = chances are pretty good you=92re also running hardware of reasonable = recent vintage and aren=92t significantly HW constrained. I think it=92s also fair to say that if you=92re providing NFS or iSCSI = services on an i386 with 512M of memory or a similarly endowed ARM or = PPC system, performance is not your first and primary concern. You=92re = simply happy that it works at all. ;-) - Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5599C60E-7735-4596-B6C5-2EE428D9B248>