Subject: Re: Raising NFS parameters for higher bandwith or "long fat pipe"
To: Eric Haszlakiewicz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/15/2003 08:34:16
... All well and good, but I'm not sure it addresses the fundamental
issue with NFS: namely, the large latency * bandwith product means NFS
may want more read-ahead than is `reasonable' for a general
David Reese checked our CVS logs and found that our sys/nfs/nfs_bio.c
*used* to have a read-ahead loop like the one I posted a few days
back; but chs was removed it in rev 1.53->1.64.
Is it really true that UBC/UVM means filesystems cannot do read-ahead
on their own? If not, why not put back the NFS VREG readahead?
(and if it is, why not fix that?)