Terrible NFS performance under 9.2-RELEASE?

[J David]

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:18 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem at uoguelph.ca> wrote:
> I didn't mention this before, but using UFS will give you more realistic
> results than using mfs, since mfs would never be used for a real NFS
> server and never gets tested as an exported NFS file system.

That's my mistake; I said "mfs" but what I meant was:

$ sudo mdconfig -a -t swap -s 2g

md0

$ sudo newfs -U /dev/md0

/dev/md0: 2048.0MB (4194304 sectors) block size 32768, fragment size 4096

using 4 cylinder groups of 512.03MB, 16385 blks, 65664 inodes.

with soft updates

super-block backups (for fsck_ffs -b #) at:

 192, 1048832, 2097472, 3146112

$ sudo mount /dev/md0 /mnt

$ cat /etc/exports

/mnt -alldirs -maproot=root 172.20.20.166 172.20.20.168 172.20.20.169


So it absolute is UFS, just backed by RAM, and I just forgot that
"mfs" is only properly used to refer to that read-only memory blob
filesystem used for miniroots.

Sorry for any confusion.

Thanks!