From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:48:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:48:21 -0400 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:11650 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:48:06 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <15244.44115.209683.288790@charged.uio.no> Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 10:48:19 +0200 To: volodya@mindspring.com Cc: Trond Myklebust , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS in 2.4.9 In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 6.89 under 21.1 (patch 14) "Cuyahoga Valley" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust User-Agent: SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) CLIME/1.13.6 (=?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCQ2YbKEI=?= =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCJU4+MRsoQg==?=) MULE XEmacs/21.1 (patch 14) (Cuyahoga Valley) (i386-redhat-linux) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == volodya writes: >> > NFS: NFSv3 not supported. nfs warning: mount version older >> > than kernel >> >> You forgot to enable NFSv3 support in your 2.4.9 kernel. > I did.. I'll make clean and recompile the kernel again, just in > case. But still: why complain about mount ? Why allow to mount > a partition ? I do not think this is the cause (also see > below). The mount format changed when we added NFSv3. The new format is backward compatible, but we still print out a message in order to ensure people get the combination NFS + mount correct. > the interface. Setting wsize and rsize to 5000 helped - thank > you very much ! I guess that between 2.4.7 and 2.4.9 the > default rsize and wsize went up. No. The default should still be the same. I changed the latter last in the 2.4.0 pre series. You can check what the actual value is using '/proc/mounts'. > Now I am wondering what is wrong with large udp packets ? (my > mtu is 1500 and they do get chopped up in smaller packets, but > so do size 5524). Any ideas ? You're probably seeing fragments disappearing. UDP has no mechanism detect this, so when it happens, the RPC layer first has to time out and then resend the entire request. In TCP connections, only the missing fragment needs to be resent. Now as to the reason why fragments are disappearing, I suggest you look at your network layout and try to measure (with the aid of a packet sniffer such as tcpdump) on which segment the loss is occuring. Cheers, Trond