Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 20:25:22 -0500 From: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE? Message-ID: <CABXB=RThLXTZoMZe2mKm3t1sJ182tkYM9OeMNZV9uLbmJHwvwg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <635382404.16057591.1390611776054.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca> References: <CABXB=RTTCfxP_Ebp3aa4k9qr5QrGDVQQMr1R1w0wBTUBD1OtwA@mail.gmail.com> <635382404.16057591.1390611776054.JavaMail.root@uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:02 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: > This comes back to my suggestion of testing with "-r 32k", since that > seems to be closed to what would be desirable for a real NFS server. > (But, if you have a major application that loves to do 4k reads/writes, > then I understand why you would use "-r 4k".) There are -r 32k examples in my previous message. The testing I am doing covers a broad spectrum of sizes from 1k to 128k, in an attempt to find which NFS settings provide the overall best settings for a variety of sizes, as general-purpose file storage is anything but one consistent block size. The 4k examples demonstrate the problems I am encountering vividly, so the focus has been on them. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CABXB=RThLXTZoMZe2mKm3t1sJ182tkYM9OeMNZV9uLbmJHwvwg>