Vincent Hoffman wrote: > On 01/07/2012 12:18, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Vincent Hoffman wrote: > >> On 01/07/2012 01:53, Rick Macklem wrote: > >>> To modify mountd to use the kernel changes is more work than I > >>> have > >>> time for, in part because mountd.c is a very ugly old piece of C > >>> code, imho. > >>> > >>> I do have a patch that suspends/resumes execution of the nfsd > >>> threads > >>> (new, experimental for FreeBSD8.n only) when mountd reloads > >>> /etc/exports. > >>> This approach has certain disadvantages vs Andrey's transactional > >>> load/commit > >>> model, but it is simple and might be sufficient for your problem. > >>> If you want to try this patch, it is at: > >>> http://people.freebsd.org/~rmacklem/atomic-export.patch > >>> (The patch affects both the kernel and mountd.c.) > >> Happy to try it, to be certain I have understood, this is for the > >> newnfs > >> server (experimental in 8.x default for 8 > >> 9+) > > Yes, that is correct. For the old (default on 8.x) it will have no > > effect. > > > >> I'll apply to my -CUREENT test VM for now. Will fire up a 8.3 vm > >> when > >> i > >> get a minute. > > Also, to enable it, you must add a "-S" flag to mountd_flags, after > > you've > > replaced the mountd executable. > > > > The patch is pretty straightforward, but has not seen much testing. > > Hopefully, it might be useful for you, rick > > Hi Rick, > > I'm afraid this didnt make any real difference for me. > Since I couldnt test it on the live system I tried it on a test vm. > on the vm (nfs server) I set a looping mount/umount > while true ; do mount /dev/md0 /mnt/tmp ; sleep 1 ; umount /mnt/tmp ; > done > > and on the client I set a loop of tars of large directorys to the nfs > mount running under time to see how well it survived. Then replicated > the test with the patch and without. > Just to confirm, you patched both the kernel and mountd and replaced both on the server? Also, I'm not sure how ZFS handles it's exports. I can't remember if you've tried an exported UFS volume. It might be something ZFS specific? rick > > [root_at_seaurchin ~]# ministat nopatch.txt atomicpatch.txt > x nopatch.txt > + atomicpatch.txt > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > | > * > | > | > * > | > | > x* > | > | xx* > x > | > | +x** > xx > | > | **** xxx > x > | > | **** xxx +x+ > + > | > | ****+*xx +x+ x > + > | > | ****+*x****++++x + + > x | > | *************+*xx+ +++x * x > x | > | ****************x**++*x+***x+ x*+ x ++*+ + x+ +x + > + +| > |||_______M_M_A__A_______|______| > | > +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ > N Min Max Median Avg Stddev > x 101 1.25 106.8 14.08 21.892178 22.196005 > + 101 1.21 186.93 18.46 27.995842 30.523218 > No difference proven at 95.0% confidence > > > (excuse wrapped ascii art) > > I think I'll have a look at the nfse patch set and see how that > performs. > > Thanks for all your work on NFS on FreeBSD. > > Vince > > > > >>> Also, you could easily hack mount.c so that it doesn't send a > >>> SIGHUP > >>> to mountd (which causes the exports to be reloaded) every time a > >>> local > >>> fs is mounted. > >> True and I may have to do that for the production NAS for the time > >> being. > >> Thanks for looking at this. > >> > >> Vince > >>> rick > >>> > >>>>> thanks, Vince > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org"Received on Sat Jul 07 2012 - 21:26:33 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:28 UTC