[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <766680.7905.qm@web32608.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:10:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
To: Jim Rees <rees@...ch.edu>
Cc: linux-nfs list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable
Adding back LKML.
----- Original Message ----
> From: Jim Rees <rees@...ch.edu>
> To: Martin Knoblauch <knobi@...bisoft.de>
> Cc: linux-nfs list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 5:31:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [RFC][Resend] Make NFS-Client readahead tunable
>
> Martin Knoblauch wrote:
>
> We never needed that in our case. But yes, would be trivial. The question
> is, whether there should be a maximum, just as a safeguard.
>
> Yes. The default should be (RPC_DEF_SLOT_TABLE - 1), and the maximum should
> be max(xprt_udp_slot_table_entries, xprt_tcp_slot_table_entries) (maybe
> minus one).
>
The default is NFS_MAX_READAHEAD, which is (RPC_DEF_SLOT_TABLE - 1). Incidentially, your suggested maximum seems to be the same on a default setup (minus one applied).
> I wonder if it would make sense to adjust NFS_MAX_READAHEAD when
> xprt_*_slot_table_entries is changed via sysctl.
I am not sure how useful/practical this is, as currently the ra_factor is applied at mount time.
Cheers
Martin
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists