From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: 2.4.18: NFS_ALL patch greatly hurting UDP speed Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 16:50:01 +0100 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <15512.44969.304675.703836@charged.uio.no> References: <3C88F8EE.86058BD5@sls.lcs.mit.edu> <3C98AD4B.8244EDC0@sls.lcs.mit.edu> <15512.44669.95177.801025@charged.uio.no> Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 16niLt-0000qO-00 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 07:50:13 -0800 To: I Lee Hetherington , In-Reply-To: <15512.44669.95177.801025@charged.uio.no> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Trond Myklebust writes: > exceeded' ICMP messages littered around the place. The first > one comes just after the loss of fragments, and is accompanied > by a 2 second delay, during which all the reads that are sent > time out without receiving a single reply... Note: this 2 second period of silence appears to be what is really causing the *100 slowdown. I've no idea what the switch is engaging in during that time, but you might want to take a look to see if those messages being sent during that period are indeed being received on the server. Cheers, Trond _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs