From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: Questions about NFS over TCP Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:23:53 -0400 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3EA7D759.5000101@RedHat.com> References: <3EA66B58.2B1E4A45@moving-picture.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Return-path: Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200] helo=lacrosse.corp.redhat.com) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 198fhv-0008LS-00 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 05:20:07 -0700 Received: from RedHat.com (dickson.boston.redhat.com [172.16.65.20]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id h3OCK0V05916 for ; Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:20:00 -0400 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.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: James Pearson wrote: >I've just started experimenting with NFS over TCP and have a few > > I too have started working with NFS over TCP and the only problem I've seen so far is with flow control on the server side... Running the fstress benchmark locks ups NFSD tighter than a drum in a matter of seconds... Now this probably has to do with way that fstress sends its rpcs. Its seems to "piggy-back" a bunch of messages in one TCP stream (meaning ethereal show multiple rpcs in one tcp frame) which is far from "normal" traffic. But it does hang the which makes it very hard to get any of timings... SteveD. ------------------------------------------------------- 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