linux-kernel - Re: high latency NFS

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 1 Aug 2008 15:23:43 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
To:	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Michael Shuey <shuey@...due.edu>,
	Shehjar Tikoo <shehjart@....unsw.edu.au>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
	rees@...i.umich.edu, aglo@...i.umich.edu
Subject: Re: high latency NFS

On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 05:23:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Having implemented the second option on a different NUMA aware
> OS and NFS server, I can say that it isn't that complex, nor that
> hard to screw up.
> 
> 	1. spawn a new thread only if all NFSDs are busy and there
> 	   are still requests queued to be serviced.
> 	2. rate limit the speed at which you spawn new NFSD threads.
> 	   About 5/s per node was about right.
> 	3. define an idle time for each thread before they
> 	   terminate. That is, is a thread has not been asked to
> 	   do any work for 30s, exit.
> 	4. use the NFSD thread pools to allow per-pool independence.

Actually, I lost you on #4.  You mean that you apply 1-3 independently
on each thread pool?  Or something else?

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/