From: Daniel Barbar Subject: Maximum number of nfsd daemons? Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:45:20 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from smtp1.legato.com ([137.69.200.1]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17a6v6-0002PR-00 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:46:36 -0700 Received: from mta1.legato.com (mta1 [137.69.1.14]) by smtp1.legato.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g713kZC29468 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:46:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pa-mail.legato.com (tombo.legato.com [137.69.23.45]) by mta1.legato.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id g713kYF12794 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:46:34 -0700 (PDT) To: "'nfs@lists.sourceforge.net'" Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Hi, We recently moved one of our NFS servers from a Sun machine running Solaris 7 to an Intel box running SuSE Linux 8.0 (kernel 2.4.18). We are experiencing some (rather heavy) performance problems, more so for clients accesing the service over our WAN link. I'm starting to go through the excerise of tuning the NFS system, and started first by trying to increase the number of nfsd process. It seems that there is a hard coded limit of 128 processes, is that correct? If true, is it because one shouldn't expect any substantial performance increase by setting the number of nfsd threads to a number larger than 128? Thanks in advance for your help. Regards, --- Daniel Barbar ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: Dice - The leading online job board for high-tech professionals. Search and apply for tech jobs today! http://seeker.dice.com/seeker.epl?rel_code=31 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs