>
> :> -vfs.nfs.realign_test: 22141777
> :> +vfs.nfs.realign_test: 498351
> :>
> :> -vfs.nfsrv.realign_test: 5005908
> :> +vfs.nfsrv.realign_test: 0
> :>
> :> +vfs.nfsrv.commit_miss: 0
> :> +vfs.nfsrv.commit_blks: 0
> :>
> :> changing them did nothing - or at least with respect to nfs throughput :-)
> :
> :I'm not sure what any of these do, as NFS is a bit out of my league.
> ::-) I'll be following this thread though!
> :
> :--
> :| Jeremy Chadwick jdc at parodius.com |
>
> A non-zero nfs_realign_count is bad, it means NFS had to copy the
> mbuf chain to fix the alignment. nfs_realign_test is just the
> number of times it checked. So nfs_realign_test is irrelevant.
> it's nfs_realign_count that matters.
>
it's zero, so I guess I'm ok there.
funny though, on my 'good' machine, vfs.nfsrv.realign_test: 5862999
and on the slow one, it's 0 - but then again the good one has been up
for several days.
> Several things can cause NFS payloads to be improperly aligned.
> Anything from older network drivers which can't start DMA on a
> 2-byte boundary, resulting in the 14-byte encapsulation header
> causing improper alignment of the IP header & payload, to rpc
> embedded in NFS TCP streams winding up being misaligned.
>
> Modern network hardware either support 2-byte-aligned DMA, allowing
> the encapsulation to be 2-byte aligned so the payload winds up being
> 4-byte aligned, or support DMA chaining allowing the payload to be
> placed in its own mbuf, or pad, etc.
>
> --
>
> One thing I would check is to be sure a couple of nfsiod's are running
> on the client when doing your tests. If none are running the RPCs wind
> up being more synchronous and less pipelined. Another thing I would
> check is IP fragment reassembly statistics (for UDP) - there should be
> none for TCP connections no matter what the NFS I/O size selected.
>
ahh, nfsiod, it seems that it's now dynamicaly started! at least none show
when host is idle, after i run my tests there are 20! with ppid 0
need to refresh my NFS knowledge.
how can I see the IP fragment reassembly statistics?
> (It does seem more likely to be scheduler-related, though).
>
tend to agree, I tried bith ULE/BSD, but the badness is there.
> -Matt
>
thanks,
danny
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
