From: Greg Banks Subject: Re: can anyone explain this state? Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:51:36 +1000 Message-ID: <20050817235136.GA12262@sgi.com> References: <1124280174.23245.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <43032CF2.3070908@redhat.com> <1124282392.23245.26.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Peter Staubach , Michael , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1E5pCp-0005k5-PQ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:35 -0700 Received: from externalmx-1.sourceforge.net ([12.152.184.25]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1E5pCm-0005Os-S5 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 18 Aug 2005 11:33:35 -0700 Received: from omx2-ext.sgi.com ([192.48.171.19] helo=omx2.sgi.com) by externalmx-1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1E5Xjv-0005G2-Vj for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 17 Aug 2005 16:54:38 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1124282392.23245.26.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 08:39:52AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > on den 17.08.2005 Klokka 08:26 (-0400) skreiv Peter Staubach: > > Trond Myklebust wrote: > > >This is done using asynchronous writes. Much faster, and no need (on > > >NFSv3) to wait for the disk before sending the next request. > > > > > >The reason is that on 2.4 kernels (and early 2.6 kernels) we could only > > >do synchronous writes when you set wsize < PAGE_SIZE. > > > > > > > Maybe I am misreading the commands being run, but they look like they would > > generate all NFS READ traffic. It appears to be copying from an NFS mounted > > file system to /tmp, a local file system. > > Oops. errno=ENOCOFFEE... You are quite right. > > Yep. That would indeed put the differences down to caching. Trond, your comments also apply for READs with rsize