> On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> >
> > Definitely let me know if you have any ac4 specific problems. Don't bother
> > Linus unless 2.2.1 unpatched also breaks.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
> > Differences between 2.2.1ac2 and 2.2.1ac3
> >
> > o 8K blocks/write cluster NFS (Trond/Olaf Kirch)
> > | This is a big patch but based on previously
> > | tested code. I've put it in because - well it goes
> > | rather fast 8)
>
> Alan,
>
> Yes, it does go rather fast. Unfortunately, where it leads me is into
> oblivion. Running 'iozone 64 8192' on a dual-PPro SMP client (2.2.1-ac3)
> against a knfsd server locks up solid after a few seconds. No log
> messages, no fanfare.
>
Hm, very strange. I don't have an SMP machine here, but I must admit
that Trond's patch (in it's v0.9 incarnation) runs rock solid here.
Also, I have a feeling that Trond's code is the best thing that
happened to Linux NFS, ever!
In 2.0 era, I was writing at 20-50KB/sec (sic!). When knfs got
introduced in 2.1, performance slightly raised but never above
~300KB/sec. And that data comes from 100MBps fdx connection!, between
fast machines, unloaded network.
Now, I'm spending last few days constantly writing and writing at
~1MB/sec. Unbelievable. It's becoming addictive. :) If only I could
utilize wsize of 32768, I bet it would be even faster (currently, code
allows me to raise wsize up to 16384, and I can't find where the limit
is).
Whatever tests I ran, kernel didn't even hickup, and I never saw such
good and stable NFS code in 2.1/2.2 kernels. As always, YMMV.
OK, that's it. Probably code should be double checked wrt SMP issues,
but I'm very glad Alan put it in his -ac patches, so it gets more
thoroughly tested, on various setups.
Regards,
-- Zlatko- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/