From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 4 19:01:56 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C70A816A420 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:01:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (p65-147.acedsl.com [66.114.65.147]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2196B43D66 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:01:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lists@stringsutils.com) Received: from zoraida.natserv.net (zoraida.natserv.net [66.114.65.147]) by zoraida.natserv.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCB9A7D8C; Wed, 4 Jan 2006 14:01:54 -0500 (EST) References: <20060104065926.GA99739@e-Gitt.NET> Message-ID: X-Mailer: http://www.courier-mta.org/cone/ From: Francisco Reyes To: Oliver Brandmueller Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 14:01:54 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD +NFS + mail services X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 19:01:56 -0000 Oliver Brandmueller writes: > Look at the sysctl vfs.nfs -> > vfs.nfs.iodmin: 4 > vfs.nfs.iodmax: 20 Great thanks. > In FreeBSD 6 you'll also find: > > vfs.nfs.iodmaxidle: 120 > > Should be pretty self explanatory. Tried to search for the meaning of that parameter. Could not find much info. Care to share some light on it? > benchmarks in your test area or before going to production. And while > being in prod you could take the chance to make performance monitoring > on all the machines and carefully change different variables How do you monitor performance on nfs.. other than nfsstat? would be usefull if vmstat included nfs mounts.. > I just migrated our NFS server(s) from 5.4 to 6.0 - our clients are > mainly still 5-STABLE, only few 6-STABLE clients. I saw a few NFS > locking problems (lockd starting to spin) with the server while it was > still RELENG_5, especially after stating with RELENG_6 clients. This was > clearly load dependant (started usually on busy days when the backup was > running into daytime). I haven't seen this yet with RELENG_6 servers, > but the migration was just one week ago and the backup scheme had been > changed also to avoid the problem, so I'm not completely sure here. So, basically on the little time you have had 6 your impression is that 6's NFS server code performs better?