[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] improve the performance of large sequential write NFS workloads

* Steve Rago <> wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 20:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Steve Rago <> wrote:
> >
> > > > Also, I don't think this needs to have a sysctl, it should just work.
> > >
> > > The sysctl is a *good thing* in that it allows the eager writeback behavior
> > > to be tuned and shut off if need be. I can only test the changes on a
> > > finite set of systems, so better safe than sorry.
> >
> > This issue has been settled many years ago and that's not what we do in the
> > Linux kernel. We prefer patches to core code where we are reasonably sure they
> > result in good behavior - and then we fix bugs in the new behavior, if any.
> >
> > (Otherwise odd sysctls would mushroom quickly and the system would become
> > untestable in practice.)
> >
> > Ingo
> I don't disagree, but "that's not what we do" hardly provides insight into
> making the judgment call. [...]

I gave you an example of the problems that arise, see the last sentence above.

> [...] In this case, the variety of combinations of NFS server speed, NFS
> client speed, transmission link speed, client memory size, and server memory
> size argues for a tunable parameter, because one value probably won't work
> well in all combinations. Making it change dynamically based on these
> parameters is more complicated than these circumstances call for, IMHO.

So having crappy tunables is the reason to introduce even more tunables? I
think you just gave a good second example of why we dont want sysctls for
features like this.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-18 23:11    [W:0.080 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site