[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091219090824.1bc4a1c8@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:08:24 +0100
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Trond.Myklebust@...app.com, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
"jens.axboe" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS
workloads
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:20:11 -0500
Steve Rago <sar@...-labs.com> wrote:
>
> I don't disagree, but "that's not what we do" hardly provides insight
> into making the judgment call. In this case, the variety of
> combinations of NFS server speed, NFS client speed, transmission link
> speed, client memory size, and server memory size argues for a tunable
> parameter, because one value probably won't work well in all
> combinations. Making it change dynamically based on these parameters
> is more complicated than these circumstances call for, IMHO.
if you as the expert do not know how to tune this... how is a sysadmin
supposed to know better?
--
Arjan van de Ven Intel Open Source Technology Centre
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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