From: Trond Myklebust Subject: RE: RE: 2.4.19 NFSALL performance oddity Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:13:33 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <15780.14733.973216.872268@charged.uio.no> References: <5CA6F03EF05E0046AC5594562398B91653BDC7@poexmb3.conoco.net> Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Trond Myklebust" , Return-path: 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 17zHaw-0005eq-00 for ; Wed, 09 Oct 2002 07:13:50 -0700 To: "Heflin, Roger A." In-Reply-To: <5CA6F03EF05E0046AC5594562398B91653BDC7@poexmb3.conoco.net> 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: >>>>> " " == Roger A Heflin writes: > We should be using sync on the mount option, correct? No. That shouldn't be necessary. The nfsd server will sync correctly when told to do so by the client as long as the 'sync' option is set in /etc/exports. > All of my tests used sync on the mount and sync in the export, > previously when using async on 2.2.xx (on the export side), and > not using the sync option on the mount appeared to cause issues > under heavy loads, ie the out of slots warnings, and sometimes > worse. You are saying that server-side caching makes things worse? Could you please back that up with some numbers? Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs