From: Bryan O'Sullivan Subject: Re: 2.4.19 NFSALL performance oddity Date: 05 Oct 2002 21:01:02 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <1033876862.18607.0.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> References: <5CA6F03EF05E0046AC5594562398B91653B9C0@poexmb3.conoco.net> <1033793310.4626.0.camel@camp4.serpentine.com> <1033851316.29937.37.camel@plokta.s8.com> <15775.24289.796995.465654@charged.uio.no> <20021005164157.B19687@lucon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Trond Myklebust , "Heflin, Roger A." , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from dsl092-013-071.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.92.13.71] helo=pelerin.serpentine.com) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17y2bQ-0004kE-00 for ; Sat, 05 Oct 2002 21:01:12 -0700 To: "H. J. Lu" In-Reply-To: <20021005164157.B19687@lucon.org> 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: On Sat, 2002-10-05 at 16:41, H. J. Lu wrote: > It must be a new bug. I used to have Quad P/II Xeon with 8GB RAM. > I had no problem with its NFS server performance. Also my modified > kernel based on RedHat kernel 2.4.18-14 has no NFS server problem > with 1.5GB RAM. You're not using Trond's NFS_ALL patch, though, right? That has some substantial modifications to the source.