Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:18:17 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:18:07 -0500 Received: from 200-221-84-35.dsl-sp.uol.com.br ([200.221.84.35]:30729 "HELO dumont.rtb.ath.cx") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:18:02 -0500 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:17:57 -0200 From: Rogerio Brito To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1 Message-ID: <20010212001757.C4457@iname.com> Mail-Followup-To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Feb 11 2001, Andi Kleen wrote: > The reiserfs nfs problem in standard 2.4 is very simple -- it'll > barf as soon as you run out of file handle/inode cache. Any workload > that accesses enough files in parallel can trigger it. I'm just trying to evaluate if I should use reiserfs here or not: is this phenomenon that you describe above happening independently of whether I choose the knfsd or userspace nfsd? From your message, I got the impression that it would happen with knfsd only, but I'm just checking before I make a wrong decision. Thanks from a humble (and ignorant) network admin, Roger... -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Rogerio Brito - rbrito@iname.com - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/