Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265505AbUAJWw0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265512AbUAJWw0 (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:52:26 -0500 Received: from pop.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:42122 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265505AbUAJWwV (ORCPT ); Sat, 10 Jan 2004 17:52:21 -0500 X-Authenticated: #20450766 Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:52:16 +0100 (CET) From: Guennadi Liakhovetski To: Mike Fedyk cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.0 NFS-server low to 0 performance In-Reply-To: <20040110223412.GC17845@matchmail.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1141 Lines: 27 On Sat, 10 Jan 2004, Mike Fedyk wrote: > What version is the arm kernel you're running on the client, and where is it > from? 2.4.19-rmk7, 24.4.21-rmk1-pxa1, 2.6.0-rmk2-pxa. All self-compiled with self-ported platform-specific patches. Sure, none of those patches touches any NFS / network general code. It might modify some (including network) drivers, and, of course the core functionality (interrupt-handling, memory, DMA, etc.) The first 2 also had real-time patches (RTAI), 2.6 on PXA didn't. The pxa-patch for 2.6 was self-ported from 2.6.0-rmk1-test2, IIRC. So, theoretically, you can blame any of those modifications, but I highly doubt, that I managed to mess up all 3 kernels on 2 different platforms to produce the same error, whereas all the rest (of course, those, that I checked, i.e. ftp, http, telnet, tftp, tcp-nfs) network protocols work. Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/