From: Frank Filz Subject: Re: Question about the nocto option in 2.4 and 2.6 Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:00:53 -0700 Message-ID: <1152295253.5385.5.camel@dyn9047022153> References: <1152293821.5385.2.camel@dyn9047022153> <1152294191.5714.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: NFS List Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyudM-0007Ja-Rz for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:00:56 -0700 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1FyudL-0008BQ-T2 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:00:57 -0700 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k67I0l6q002836 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 14:00:47 -0400 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (d03av01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.167]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k67I02gR302676 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:00:02 -0600 Received: from d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k67I0k5q001956 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 12:00:46 -0600 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1152294191.5714.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 13:43 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 10:37 -0700, Frank Filz wrote: > > I'm consulting on an issue where we are seeing an increase in network > > traffic between 2.4.21 and 2.6.9 kernels with the use of the nocto > > option. This is raising a performance concern. > > > > I'm wondering what has changed with this option between the two kernel > > levels. > > Nothing much. What does nfsstat tell you has changed? I currently don't have access to the machines involved. I'm trying to get a bit more information. Looking at the code, I do see that the check for the nocto option has moved from nfs_open to nfs_lookup_verify_inode. Frank Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs