Claus Guttesen wrote:
How did you come to this conclusion? What kind of workload?
To make a short story long ;-)
Last year just after christmas I got a new storage system and had an opportunity to replace our Linux-nfs-server with FreeBSD. I searched the archives for nfs-related tuning-information, and found some links suggesting the usage of tcp rather than udp and adjusting the r/w-size. So I nfs-mounted some clients and started to copy back and forth. The december release of the (back then) current had some "server not responding" messages, but they appeared less with r/w-sizes of 32768. The copying itself was faster as well.
So I upgraded (two or three times) until I had the Feb. 18'th 2004 current and the "server not responding" almost vanished. Some weeks after that the server went into production and have been rock-stable! It went down once but that was only due to a poweroutage that lasted a few hours, longest uptime was 117 days before I took it down for servermaintenance.
The files are at most some MB in size (images) and some KB (thumbnails).
This is in line with what the graphs suggest: Use Laaarrrrrggggeee sizes.
And use tcp as well.
I would conclude use UDP if they are on the same net/switch.
Block reading is more or less equal for both.
Block writing is slightly better for UDP, both there is a strange dip for 4Mb filesize. Which was very repeatable, but I can not explain.
If you'd have a lot of rewriting, I'd say UDP as well, but 8K szie would be better.
--WjW _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
