On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:13:32PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I am sorry about the delay due to some unavoidable circumstances. However,
> I have
> got most of the details that you and Jeff had asked for. I am including:
>
> 1. Patch (on latest git tree):
> (See attached file: patch0) (See attached file: patch1)
>
> 2. Results (for org, using daemon, using workqueue):
> (See attached file: result.daemon) (See attached file: result.wq)
> (See attached file: result.summary)
>
> 3. Profile data (for org, using daemon, using workqueue):
> (See attached file: profiles.bz2)
>
> 4. A small write up:
> (See attached file: write_up)
>
> 5. The test program:
> (See attached file: read_files.c)
>
> Sorry about the large attachment in step #3 above, I didn't know if I
> should put it some place. Also if required, I can submit patches breaking
> up this monolithic one.
Thanks, I'll take a look (maybe not immediately). Probably Jeff will
too, but as long as a) there's a large monolithic patch, and b) all of
this is in attachments--I'm afraid nobody else may bother.
So it'd be more helpful to send this information in the body of email
(more than one email if needed)--that way there's a greater chance other
people will pay attention, and (with luck) have some useful idea to
contribute.
Thanks!--b.
OK, I will break the attachments into text files tomorrow :) I will send
everything but the
profile data once again.
thanks,
- KK
"J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]> wrote on 03/24/2009 11:30:36 PM:
> "J. Bruce Fields" <[email protected]>
> 03/24/2009 11:30 PM
>
> To
>
> Krishna Kumar2/India/IBM@IBMIN
>
> cc
>
> Jeff Layton <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>
> Subject
>
> Re: nfsd: Improve NFS server performance
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 09:13:32PM +0530, Krishna Kumar2 wrote:
> > Hi Bruce,
> >
> > I am sorry about the delay due to some unavoidable circumstances.
However,
> > I have
> > got most of the details that you and Jeff had asked for. I am
including:
> >
> > 1. Patch (on latest git tree):
> > (See attached file: patch0) (See attached file:
patch1)
> >
> > 2. Results (for org, using daemon, using workqueue):
> > (See attached file: result.daemon) (See attached file:
result.wq)
> > (See attached file: result.summary)
> >
> > 3. Profile data (for org, using daemon, using workqueue):
> > (See attached file: profiles.bz2)
> >
> > 4. A small write up:
> > (See attached file: write_up)
> >
> > 5. The test program:
> > (See attached file: read_files.c)
> >
> > Sorry about the large attachment in step #3 above, I didn't know if I
> > should put it some place. Also if required, I can submit patches
breaking
> > up this monolithic one.
>
> Thanks, I'll take a look (maybe not immediately). Probably Jeff will
> too, but as long as a) there's a large monolithic patch, and b) all of
> this is in attachments--I'm afraid nobody else may bother.
>
> So it'd be more helpful to send this information in the body of email
> (more than one email if needed)--that way there's a greater chance other
> people will pay attention, and (with luck) have some useful idea to
> contribute.
>
> Thanks!--b.