On Sep 10, 2009, at 5:08 AM, James Pearson wrote:
Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 22:47 +0100, James Pearson wrote:
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.
Right. The above was indeed the guiding principle back when I did the
rsize/wsize negotiation for NFSv3 and NFSv2 for the binary mount
code.
The NFS protocol specifies that the maximum values are there to
tell you
that the server will do short read/writes if you exceed these.
However,
the preferred values may correspond to a different 'sweet spot' for
the
server read and write implementations.
So does that mean that the binary mount options are doing the right
thing, whereas the text mount options are not? Also, just to
confirm, I'm using NFSv3.
I don't think there is a clear right or wrong here. The binary
behavior follows protocol guidelines, which is fine. But, there are
plenty of cases where using the server's preferred size by default is
not always optimal. For example, the server may advertise a
preference for 32768, but using that setting with UDP on a congested
network would result in poor performance.
In other words, the client may decide that using a larger or smaller
setting than the server's preference would be better. Or, it may use
the largest possible setting for r/wsize, but advertise the server's
preference number in stat(2) results.
Fwiw, I don't have any problem switching the text-based defaults to
zero.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
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
