On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 04:35:00PM +0200, Jakob Oestergaard wrote: > I'm wondering... Can anyone else reproduce this problem? > > Just to explain quickly: > Running nfsbench (on the NFS client) once with LEADING_EMPTY_SPACE set > to 0 and then once with the option set to 1. If there's a big change > in wall-clock execution time, this indicates that the problem exists. > > I'd be really interested in knowing whether I'm the only one who sees > this problem. Jakob, Your NFS setup is specific to your system. Have you considered trying this over loopback to narrow down the variables? If you see similar getattr/write behavior over loopback, it will make it easy for everyone else to test. -Bill - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- References:
- NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
- Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- From: Jakob Oestergaard <[email protected]>
- NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- Prev by Date: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps
- Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] Document Linux's memory barriers [try #5]
- Previous by thread: Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- Next by thread: Re: NFS client (10x) performance regression 2.6.14.7 -> 2.6.15
- Index(es):