At 12:25 AM -0800 2004/03/08, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Even so, it might be a good idea for us to use a significantly larger > soreserve value, or to increase the buffer limit when a large data > block size is negotiated. Instead of adding a slop of 2048 > (aka 32768 + 404 + 2048 = 35220 bytes) it might be better to set > the soreserve value to 65535 by default. Out of curiosity, is it possible to set this value to be twice the negotiated block size? > Generally speaking the TCP buffer ought to be large enough to buffer > at least two full-sized NFS data packets to reduce NFSD interlock > stalls when combined with read-ahead. That's exactly what I was thinking. Hence my question. -- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles_at_skynet.be> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania. GCS/IT d+(-) s:+(++)>: a C++(+++)$ UMBSHI++++$ P+>++ L+ !E-(---) W+++(--) N+ !w--- O- M++ V PS++(+++) PE- Y+(++) PGP>+++ t+(+++) 5++(+++) X++(+++) R+(+++) tv+(+++) b+(++++) DI+(++++) D+(++) G+(++++) e++>++++ h--- r---(+++)* z(+++)Received on Mon Mar 08 2004 - 02:40:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:46 UTC