From: Ion Badulescu Subject: Re: nfsd tuning - please help me! Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:32:12 -0500 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <200302142032.h1EKWCIJ006931@buggy.badula.org> References: <20030214174453.11719.qmail@web12201.mail.yahoo.com> Cc: Steve Dickson , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from ool-4351594a.dyn.optonline.net ([67.81.89.74] helo=badula.org) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 18jmVa-0003tR-00 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:32:30 -0800 To: Alan Powell In-Reply-To: <20030214174453.11719.qmail@web12201.mail.yahoo.com> 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 Fri, 14 Feb 2003 09:44:53 -0800 (PST), Alan Powell wrote: > Unfortunately, we've tried all that already. So given > that we are not hardware/network constrained, does all > this mean that the Linux kernel NFS runs into > performance issues beyond 100 file reads/sec? It's quite possible... What I'd recommend, however, is testing this again with a non-RedHat kernel on the client. More precisely, try running 2.4.20 plus the NFSALL patch from Trond's site . We've had significant performance problems over here with the RedHat kernels, which mostly went away when we replaced the NFS client code with 2.4.20+NFSALL. Hope this helps, Ion -- It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues. http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs