Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:58:44 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: multiplexing TCP sockets in the NFS client Message-ID: <46BC9944.9010408@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0708101121080.25743@muncher> References: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0708101121080.25743@muncher>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Rick Macklem wrote: > Long long ago, I felt it might be better to use a separate TCP socket > for each mount to the same server. The argument was along the lines of: > > Some mounts might be much busier than others and, as such, the > separate TCP socket would provide feedback to the client w.r.t. > load on that mount. The assumption w.r.t. busier mount points > tacitly assumed separate disks with some disks experiencing > heavy I/O loads. > > It seems to me that these days, what with SANs, RAIDs, GEOM,... that a > mount point probably isn't going to reflect a different disk subsystem > so much as an administrative boundary. Also, it's not obvious that the > feedback argument is relevant anyhow, since clients will still receive > replies when the server gets around to doing the RPC, in any case. > > So, I'm thinking that it might be better to change the client code so that > it shares one TCP connection between all mounts to the same server. This > reduces the number of TCP connections (possibly an issue if clients use > an automounter to do a lot of mounts). It might also help w.r.t transport > performance by increasing the volume of data being transferred on the TCP > connection? (I don't know enough about current TCP stacks to know if this > is the case or not?) > > Any comments? rick > Is SCTP of any interest in the NFS world? Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?46BC9944.9010408>