If you do find an optional configuration would you be interested
	in submitting details for an FAQ entry? :)

		David/absolute

 -=-  "I know its not the right thing, and I know its not the good thing"  -=-

On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 andreasc@netinsight.se wrote:

> On 19 Oct, Curt Sampson wrote:
> 
> 
> >> I already usese 8kb/blocks. (rsize,wsize when mounting).
> > 
> > You may find 1K blocks faster. Last I checked, Linux *still* did
> > fragment reassembly by doing a full copy of all the fragments into
> > a new buffer, rather than just chaining the buffers.
> 
> I have reached best performance when rsize is 4k and wsize is 32k (but
> the difference between 8k and 32k is small).
> 
> 
> On 19 Oct, Brian C. Grayson wrote:
> 
> >  Supposedly, the cause for such poor write performance is:
> > Linux does everything in 1K blocks.  So when it writes to an
> > NFS filesystem, it sends a write for the first 1K, which requires
> > the server to read 4K from disk, modify 1K, and write 4K back to
> > disk.  Then, Linux writes the next 1K, which requires 4K read, 1K
> > modify, 4K write to disk.  Etc.  So, there is 4x the
> > filesystem/disk traffic on the server than necessary.  This can
> > be observed via running xosview on the server -- on our setup,
> > the net traffic is a steady 160KB/sec, while the disk traffic is
> > ~650K/sec.  From a NetBSD client, both net traffic and disk
> > throughput go to near 1MB/sec (we are on 10Mb/sec Ethernet).
> 
> I checked this up with xosview, and it seems correct.
> 
> 
> >  However, as far as I can tell, Linux does neither!  (Its NFSv3
> > support is a sham/empty husk, and it doesn't always honor
> > wsize, from what I've seen, or at least wsize=8192 seems to use
> > 4096, and wsize=2048 seems to use 1024, IIRC.)
> 
> But it makes difference when i use 32k. I will take another look at
> this later today.
> 
> >  Hope this helps!
> 
> A bit, thank you!
> 
> -- Andreas
>  
> 
> 
>