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, 2 May 2001 11:46:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 2 May 2001 11:46:05 -0400 Received: from mail.ureach.com ([63.150.151.36]:19983 "EHLO ureach.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 2 May 2001 11:45:49 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 11:45:48 -0400 Message-Id: <200105021545.LAA18440@www23.ureach.com> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Kapish K Reply-to: Subject: nfs performance at high loads Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-vsuite-type: e Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello!! Well... thanks for all the suggestions, but we might need to stick with 2.4.2 for various other dependencies, but, I have a surprising thing to report on the observations. I tried the zero-copy patch on 2.4.0, and it seemed to help in solving the memory allocation problem, and also did have some decent throughput and response time ( around 5 milliseconcds or so ). But, with 2.4.2, its horrible!!! Yes, we don't see any memory allocation problems, but nfs seems to have been really screwed up or something. I haven't had the chance to look at the code ( should try to do so soon ), but does anybody have any idea of lurking bugs in this area?? This is totally unacceptable. We see response times of 80 milliseconds!!! There is something really gone wrong here... any ideas?? Thanks ________________________________________________ Get your own "800" number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag