From: Greg Banks <gnb@sgi.com>
Subject: Re: Some code, and a question
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2005 11:02:19 +1000
Message-ID: <20050907010219.GA14233@sgi.com>
References: <1126046397.3000.188.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
To: Dan Stromberg <strombrg@dcs.nac.uci.edu>
In-Reply-To: <1126046397.3000.188.camel@seki.nac.uci.edu>
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net

On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 03:39:57PM -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> 
> OK, I know NFS isn't usually thought of as the fastest protocol under
> the sun,

Why would you think that?  NFSv3 can be very efficient at moving
bits from point A to point B.

> My question is, before diving into trying to determine this empirically,
> is there any theoretical reason why it would be better to have
> rsize==wsize,

>From a protocol point of view, no.

> or should it be better to just pick whatever rsize gives
> the best read performance and pick whatever wsize gives the best write
> performance, and not worry about if rsize!=wsize?

It will depend on the workload, but generally read and write throughput
will be better the larger the block size, up to a value beyond the
Linux kernel's ability to support.  I expect you will find your optimum
at rsize=wsize=32K.

Greg.
-- 
Greg Banks, R&D Software Engineer, SGI Australian Software Group.
I don't speak for SGI.


-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  NFS@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs