From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: [PATCH] Timeouts gone wild on ia64 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 11:33:00 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3EC3B32C.6000900@RedHat.com> References: <482A3FA0050D21419C269D13989C6113127DC8@lavender-fe.eng.netapp.com> <3EC39FDF.60609@RedHat.com> <16067.42148.524146.39488@charged.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: "Lever, Charles" , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200] helo=lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19GKjC-0004ji-00 for ; Thu, 15 May 2003 08:33:06 -0700 To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no In-Reply-To: <16067.42148.524146.39488@charged.uio.no> 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: Trond Myklebust wrote: >With a properly implemented algorithm, the number of retransmits >should be small anyway as it is supposed to take into account the >variance on the estimated RTO. We don't want any extra artificial >limits if we can avoid it. > I totally greed... But this change, IMHO, will give a better estimated RTO since all of the constants are based on the machine's HZ... At least that's how I saw it... >You may well be right in asserting that we're setting the initial RTO >estimate too low, but then the answer should be to increase the value >of the 'timeo' mount parameter as that is what defines the initial >estimate. >The default value of 'retrans' should also be looked at. I'm not at >all comfortable with a default retrans value of '3' when doing soft >mounts. > This was the direction I was headed until I saw the minimal RTO was not HZ based... When I changed that which seem to take care of the problem... I just stopped there... :( >At the moment I believe that the default values for these 2 parameters >differ in the kernel from those in the 'mount' program. IMHO, the >mount program is overriding the kernel with too low values. It would >be better if 'mount' did not set timeo/retrans (unless the user >overrides) and left that to the kernel. > This definitely seems wrong.... SteveD. ------------------------------------------------------- Enterprise Linux Forum Conference & Expo, June 4-6, 2003, Santa Clara The only event dedicated to issues related to Linux enterprise solutions www.enterpriselinuxforum.com _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs