From: "Shankar Anand" <shanand@novell.com>
Subject: Re: nfsstat for NFSv4
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 05:19:21 -0600
Message-ID: <44621990.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com>
References: <4452537B.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com> <445B8B54.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com>
	<445F9F92.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com>
	<20060508222531.GA4849@fieldses.org>
	<4460EC0F.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: "G.Allen Morris III" <gam3@gam3.net>,
	Charles Lever <Charles.Lever@netapp.com>
Return-path: <nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,<nfsv4@linux-nfs.org>,
	<nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <4460EC0F.AD69.00CC.0@novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://linux-nfs.org/pipermail/nfsv4>
List-Post: <mailto:nfsv4@linux-nfs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4>,
	<mailto:nfsv4-request@linux-nfs.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org
Errors-To: nfsv4-bounces@linux-nfs.org
List-ID: <nfs.lists.sourceforge.net>

*Sorry I am repeating my previous email as it was badly cluttered*

Hi,

> "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org> 5/9/2006 3:55:31 am >>>
>> On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 08:14:19 AM Shankar Anand wrote:
>> I have added some code for NFSv4 server statistics for 
>> individual NFSv4 operations. I will submitting that to the 
>> NFS community soon.

>> I have some questions:
>> 1. I noticed in Allen's patch for nfsstat for NFSv4 statistics 
>> that he has taken into account only 32 NFSv4 operations. 
>> Do you have any reasons for leaving out the other 
>> operations (like PUTFH, SECINFO, SAVEFH)?

> At a guess: PUTFH and SAVEFH aren't particularly interesting, 
> and SECINFO isn't implemented yet on the server 
> (and isn't used yet on the client).

But the problem with this is that we skip operations in 
between, which breaks the order of the operations given 
in the RFC i.e. the linear order in which the statistics are 
captured in the NFSv4 server.

Just want to know why this was done when capturing 
the count for an extra procedure does not require much 
extra effort, going by the existing code and actually 
causes a break in the list of operation numbers.

>> 2. I understand that in NFSv3 server we write the statistics 
>> into /proc/net/rpc/nfsd in the same order as the RPC 
>> procedure numbers. Using the same logic, I have written 
>> the NFSv4 statistics to be logged into /proc/net/rpc/nfsd 
>> in the same  order in which the operations are listed in 
>> the NFSv4 RFC. 
>> But the NFSv4 client statistics that are getting printed in 
>> Allen's patch seem to be of a different order. 
>> Why was this decided to be so?

It would be great if someone can answer this too.

Regards,
Shankar