Chuck Lever wrote:
Should the kernel be setting rsize (and wsize) to 0 by default?
nfs(5) says:
"If an [rw]size value is not specified, or if the specified [rw]size
value is larger than the maximum that either client or server can
support, the client and server negotiate the largest [rw]size value
that they can both support."
So the text-based behavior is what is documented now.
Does anyone know of a reason to use the server's "preferred" transfer
size rather than the largest size supported by both client and server?
Usually those are the same.
In this case, the manufacturer of the NFS server recommends using 128Kb
for rsize and 512Kb for wsize - although the maximum rsize it supports
is 512Kb. I assume in their testing, these values have given optimal
performance figures.
The default behaviour with binary mount options when no [rw]size is to
select these preferred values - which to me, makes sense - as by not
giving a [rw]size, you are leaving it up the server to pick the 'best'
values for you - which I guess in most (all other?) cases happen to be
the maximum size.
James Pearson
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
