From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B997C49ED7 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4728A21907 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 15:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="XE4NhdvN" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2390929AbfISPI7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:08:59 -0400 Received: from mail-io1-f44.google.com ([209.85.166.44]:37923 "EHLO mail-io1-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2388808AbfISPI7 (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:08:59 -0400 Received: by mail-io1-f44.google.com with SMTP id k5so8531648iol.5 for ; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:08:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=7Q/kkfVVsj6sw5lYCmq8HgqPXsWbozaGSHVGGTc0OmU=; b=XE4NhdvNXktFcq5mkhIJ0rF0NRT063Bm7lueTbqe7EYRhaO2r3QN0A8LuFqVTXJaGK BWnsu5Mi4b0u2SPtoE0kdwAjVzu29u/KAY0+K7JpiiPm1EZFvR4t1JDgM2cZdPofiy8X 9PBPYJasSQAnVPnTyKw13bQg3AbZDTKxN+t4UjgQMbB1AbQUFsGfzL6nEuRAEXcF4Gn3 5J63zJUFX3zkDUzLcJmSOIyLgm1mfjomuon/Z2+nJ26nqWDSMTHGevkD8zonxlhpKZF8 SmQ5I2QTJ+puWnVvft4se0g/5GTcIXWDPmn6pcHsc94XHAZM0yNS7OPS4T51HjKjOkYi Wz8Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=7Q/kkfVVsj6sw5lYCmq8HgqPXsWbozaGSHVGGTc0OmU=; b=JOfeYkXpCIbqljbH6WcTPe3teLn9NnzbFYNE6fAhsDcDsLzqsNgenB8XXGwnK6ilCc 3f7Q2V3M2tN/ERoTOTfvh4FxhFsunXWERQ/b462ySmqd3KTH/MMDSuQt7O4G3diQeV8U KmAHTMW5VCeOeDITpNv/2IVl8i9+mz5BbBF73RjbPMPPTscqs+kuevShIyJIrjc+2Bn/ SB2yKtuypqG68UbSBVLGr1Jqk0RUQ8X83uMR5AJGNueP3JLUtCnIvUDJdRrm+UxmQgas POvRakzwanVj4gK3T2UD7yok93IIi/RETj+ZUHkTiq9VQRRTvQyGiUOPopHxk/KkU12u 43iA== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAVUWGjhTHf2ZPxqylNKhsoBm/eUkmmODPlg1p6JkSIcUbtViXUp 1c0EB440ebn8sHS2M2SllVfCc6kXo1hPwOV6DQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqynUI3Ptd0+1QbGQUPpYWTm9S1JCBenBSfULiyIWOI45JdkiTv6O7kp5LZWAQxikbHuwZRyfpKwQ4fDy0QlgC8= X-Received: by 2002:a02:2302:: with SMTP id u2mr12837744jau.70.1568905737764; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:08:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <80353d78-e3d9-0ee2-64a4-cd2f22272fbe@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <80353d78-e3d9-0ee2-64a4-cd2f22272fbe@gmail.com> From: Trond Myklebust Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 11:08:46 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: rsize,wsize=1M causes severe lags in 10/100 Mbps, what sets those defaults? To: Alkis Georgopoulos Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 at 03:44, Alkis Georgopoulos wrote: > > Hi, in any recent distribution that I tried, the default NFS wsize/rsize > was 1 MB. > > On 10/100 Mbps networks, this causes severe lags, timeouts, and dmesg > fills with messages like: > > > [ 316.404250] nfs: server 192.168.1.112 not responding, still trying > > [ 316.759512] nfs: server 192.168.1.112 OK > > Forcing wsize/rsize to 32K makes all the problems disappear and NFS > access more snappy, without sacrificing any speed at least up to gigabit > networks that I tested with. > > I would like to request that the defaults be changed to 32K. > But I didn't find out where these defaults come from, where to file the > issue and my test case / benchmarks to support it. > > I've initially reported it at the klibc nfsmount program that I was > using, but this is just using the NFS defaults, which are the ones that > should be amended. So initial test case / benchmarks there: > https://lists.zytor.com/archives/klibc/2019-September/004234.html > > Please Cc me as I'm not in the list. > The default client behaviour is just to go with whatever recommended value the server specifies. You can change that value yourself on the knfsd server by editing the pseudo-file in /proc/fs/nfsd/max_block_size. Cheers Trond