From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:11:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:11:06 -0400 Received: from ns.ithnet.com ([217.64.64.10]:19470 "HELO heather.ithnet.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 11:10:53 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2001 17:10:49 +0200 From: Stephan von Krawczynski To: Alex Bligh - linux-kernel Cc: phillips@bonn-fries.net, riel@conectiva.com.br, jaharkes@cs.cmu.edu, marcelo@conectiva.com.br, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: page_launder() on 2.4.9/10 issue Message-Id: <20010906171049.4d40da02.skraw@ithnet.com> In-Reply-To: <598034578.999792124@[10.132.112.53]> In-Reply-To: <20010906163909.186b8b46.skraw@ithnet.com> <598034578.999792124@[10.132.112.53]> Organization: ith Kommunikationstechnik GmbH X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.6.1 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:02:04 +0100 Alex Bligh - linux-kernel wrote: > Stephan, > >> You yourself proved this, by switching rsize,wsize to 1k and said > >> it all worked fine! (unless I misread your email). > > > > Sorry, misunderstanding: I did not touch rsize/wsize. What I do is to lower fs > > action by not letting knfsd walk through the subtrees of a mounted fs. This > > leads to less allocs/frees by the fs layer which tend to fail and let knfs fail > > afterwards. > > OK, I'm getting confused. To end that: What I meant was, I did not touch the values most everybody uses on NFS, which is: rsize=8192,wsize=8192 Using smaller values (or default = 1024) gives such a ridicolously bad performance that I would even prefer samba. Regards, Stephan