Re: Where in the server code is fsinfo rtpref calculated?

["Myklebust, Trond" <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>]

On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 10:47 -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 03:34:27PM +0100, James Vanns wrote:
> > 
> > > On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 02:42:42PM +0100, James Vanns wrote:
> > > > > fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c:nfsd_get_default_maxblksize() is probably a good
> > > > > starting point.  Its caller, nfsd_create_serv(), calls
> > > > > svc_create_pooled() with the result that's calculated.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmm. If I've read this section of code correctly, it seems to me
> > > > that on most modern NFS servers (using TCP as the transport) the
> > > > default
> > > > and preferred blocksize negotiated with clients will almost always
> > > > be
> > > > 1MB - the maximum RPC payload. The nfsd_get_default_maxblksize()
> > > > function
> > > > seems obsolete for modern 64-bit servers with at least 4G of RAM as
> > > > it'll
> > > > always prefer this upper bound instead of any value calculated
> > > > according to
> > > > available RAM.
> > > 
> > > Well, "obsolete" is an odd way to put it--the code is still expected
> > > to work on smaller machines.
> > 
> > Poor choice of words perhaps. I guess I'm just used to NFS servers being
> > pretty hefty pieces of kit and 'small' workstations having a couple of GB
> > of RAM too.
> > 
> > > Arguments welcome about the defaults, thoodd ugh I wonder whether it
> > > would be better to be doing this sort of calculation in user space.
> > 
> > See below.
> > 
> > > > For what it's worth (not sure if I specified this) I'm running
> > > > kernel 2.6.32.
> > > > 
> > > > Anyway, this file/function appears to set the default *max*
> > > > blocksize. I haven't
> > > > read all the related code yet, but does the preferred block size
> > > > derive
> > > > from this maximum too?
> > > 
> > > See
> > > > > For finfo see fs/nfsd/nfs3proc.c:nfsd3_proc_fsinfo, which uses
> > > > > svc_max_payload().
> > 
> > I've just returned from nfsd3_proc_fsinfo() and found what I would
> > consider an odd decision - perhaps nothing better was suggested at
> > the time. It seems to me that in response to an FSINFO call the reply
> > stuffs the max_block_size value in  both the maximum *and* preferred
> > block sizes for both read and write. A 1MB block size for a preferred
> > default is a little high! If a disk is reading at 33MB/s and we have just
> > a single server running 64 knfsd and each READ call is requesting 1MB of
> > data then all of a sudden we have an aggregate read speed of ~512k/s
> 
> I lost you here.
> 
> > and 
> > that is without network latencies. And of course we will probably have 100s of
> > requests queued behind each knfsd waiting for these 512k reads to finish. All of a
> > sudden our user experience is rather poor :(
> 
> Note the preferred size is not a minimum--the client isn't forced to do
> 1MB reads if it really only wants 1 page, for example, if that's what
> you mean.
> 
> (I haven't actually looked at how typical clients used rt/wtpref.)

For our client, the answer is:

rtpref == default rsize
wtpref == default wsize and default f_bsize


-- 
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer

NetApp
Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com
www.netapp.com