Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS

From: Andrew Gillham <gillham(at)vaultron(dot)com>
To: David Laight <david(at)l8s(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls(at)rek(dot)tjls(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, current-users(at)netbsd(dot)org, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, darcy(at)druid(dot)net
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL, NetBSD and NFS
Date: 2003-02-06 18:27:04
Message-ID: 20030206102704.B14676@flash.vaultron.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 09:24:48PM +0000, David Laight wrote:
> > If he is using UDP rather than TCP
> > as the transport layer, another potential issue is that 32K requests will
> > end up as IP packets with a very large number of fragments, potentially
> > exposing some kind of network stack bug in which the last fragment is
> > dropped or corrupted.
>
> Actually it is worse that that, and IMHO 32k UDP requests are asking for
> trouble.
>
> A 32k UDP datagram is about 22 ethernet packets. If ANY of them is
> lost on the network, then the entire datagram is lost. NFS must
> regenerate the request on a timeout. The receiving system won't
> report that it is missing a fragment.

As he stated several times, he has tested with TCP mounts and observed
the same issue. So the above issue shouldn't be related.

> There are also an lot of ethernet cards out there which don't have
> enough buffer space for 32k of receive data. Not to mention the
> fact that NFS can easily (at least on some systems) generate
> concurrent requests for different parts of the same file.
>
> I would suggest reducing the size back to 8k, even that causes
> trouble with some cards.

If NetBSD as an NFS client is this fragile we have problems. The default
read/write size shouldn't be 32kB if that is not going to work reliably.

> It should also be realised that transmitting 22 full sized, back
> to back frames on the ethernet doesn't do anything for sharing
> the bandwidth betweenn different users. The MAC layer has to very
> aggressive in order to get a packet in edgeways (so to speak).

So what? If it is a switched network, which I assume it is since he was
talking to the NetApp gigabit port earlier, then this is irrelevant. Even
the $40 Fry's switches are more or less non-blocking.

Even if he is saturating the local *hub*, it shouldn't cause NetBSD to fail,
it would just be rude. :-)

There could be some packet mangling on the network, checking the amount
of retransmissions on either end of the TCP connection should give you an
idea about that.

-Andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2003-02-06 18:45:11 Why is lc_messages restricted?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2003-02-06 18:26:32 Re: PostgreSQL v7.3.2 Released -- Permission denied from pretty much