Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS

From: "D'Arcy J(dot)M(dot) Cain" <darcy(at)druid(dot)net>
To: Ian Fry <Ian(dot)Fry(at)sophos(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, current-users(at)netbsd(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS
Date: 2003-02-05 20:01:27
Message-ID: 200302051501.27557.darcy@druid.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday 05 February 2003 13:04, Ian Fry wrote:
> > Wild thought here: can you reduce the MTU on the LAN linking the NFS
> > server to the NetBSD box? If so, does it help?
>
> How about adjusting the read and write-size used by the NetBSD machine? I
> think the default is 32k for both read and write on i386 machines now.
> Perhaps try setting them back to 8k (it's the -r and -w flags to mount_nfs,
> IIRC)

Hey! That did it. I hadn't tried that before because I had tried using the
tcp option to mount and the docs suggested that that would do more than
reducing the block size. Besides, the man page didn't give the defaults and
I was uncomfortable changing something when I didn't know from what.

So, why does this fix it? It seems to me that it should have worked anyway.
This feels rather fragile. I doubt that it is hardware related because I dad
tried it on the other ethernet interface in the machine which was on a
completely different network than the one I am on now.

What is the implication of smaller read and write size? Will I necessarily
take a performance hit?

--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy(at){druid|vex}.net> | Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on
+1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-05 20:09:09 Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS
Previous Message Oleg Bartunov 2003-02-05 19:04:32 Alpha version of contrib/tsearch is available for testing