> On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 10:44:35 +0300 Al Boldi <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > I would suggest getting a 'tcpdump -s0' trace and seeing (with
> > > > wireshark) what is different between the various cases.
> > >
> > > Thanks Neil for looking into this. Your suggestion has already been
> > > answered in a previous post, where the difference has been attributed to
> > > "ls -l" inducing lookup for the first try, which is fast, and getattr
> > > for later tries, which is super-slow.
> > >
> > > Now it's easy to blame the userland rpc.nfs.V2 server for this, but
> > > what's not clear is how come 2.4.31 handles getattr faster than 2.6.23?
> >
> > We broke 2.6? It'd be interesting to run the ls in an infinite loop on
> > the client them start poking at the server. Is the 2.6 server doing
> > physical IO? Is the 2.6 server consuming more system time? etc. A basic
> > `vmstat 1' trace for both 2.4 and 2.6 would be a starting point.
> >
> > Could be that there's some additional latency caused by networking
> > changes, too. I expect the tcpdump/wireshark/etc traces would have
> > sufficient resolution for us to be able to see that.
>
> The problem turns out to be "tune2fs -O dir_index".
> Removing that feature resolves the big slowdown.
Doh. Well worked-out.
> Does 2.4.31 support this feature?
No. This explains it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
