public inbox for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Pearson <james-p-5Ol4pYTxKWu0ML75eksnrtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Text based mount options ignoring the preferred rwsize?
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 17:47:32 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AA68AA4.7090606@moving-picture.com> (raw)

I've noticed a difference in the rsize used when mounting a file system 
  between using text and binary mount options.

The client is running a CentOS5 based distro with a 2.6.32-rc8 kernel

The server has a preferred rsize of 128kb and maximum rsize of 512kb

When I use mount.nfs from CentOS5/RHEL5 nfs-utils (based on v1.0.9) and 
don't give any rsize option, it mounts the file system with a rsize of 
128kb. This uses binary mount options

But, when using mount.nfs from nfs-utils 1.2.0, the file system is 
mounted with an rsize of 512kb

Looking at the nfs-utils and kernel source, it appears that for binary 
options, rsize is set to 0 if not given by mount.nfs, and the kernel 
eventually, in this case, increases this to preferred size.

But for text mount options, if not set by mount.nfs, the default size is 
  set to NFS_MAX_FILE_IO_SIZE in the kernel, which, in this case, gets 
reduced to the server maximum size.

Should the kernel be setting rsize (and wsize) to 0 by default?

Thanks

James Pearson

             reply	other threads:[~2009-09-08 17:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-08 16:47 James Pearson [this message]
     [not found] ` <4AA68AA4.7090606-5Ol4pYTxKWu0ML75eksnrtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2009-09-09 19:23   ` Text based mount options ignoring the preferred rwsize? Chuck Lever
2009-09-09 21:47     ` James Pearson
     [not found]       ` <4AA8225A.9060107-5Ol4pYTxKWu0ML75eksnrtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2009-09-09 22:34         ` Chuck Lever
2009-09-09 22:56         ` Trond Myklebust
     [not found]           ` <1252536970.8722.110.camel-rJ7iovZKK19ZJLDQqaL3InhyD016LWXt@public.gmane.org>
2009-09-10  9:08             ` James Pearson
     [not found]               ` <4AA8C215.2030002-5Ol4pYTxKWu0ML75eksnrtBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>
2009-09-10 17:49                 ` Chuck Lever

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4AA68AA4.7090606@moving-picture.com \
    --to=james-p-5ol4pytxkwu0ml75eksnrtbpr1lh4cv8@public.gmane.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox