From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom McNeal Subject: NFS utils package, and an fsx question Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 19:27:06 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3CDF247A.E7106AA4@attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from rwcrmhc54.attbi.com ([216.148.227.87]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 1775WG-0006bt-00 for ; Sun, 12 May 2002 19:25:00 -0700 Received: from attbi.com ([12.234.31.73]) by rwcrmhc54.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020513022454.TCWT25765.rwcrmhc54.attbi.com@attbi.com> for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 02:24:55 +0000 To: NFS maillist 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: Hi - I've created and tested a new NFS utils package, which can be downloaded from http://nfs.sourceforge.net/nfs-utils-1-0-1-pre7.tar.gz The tests consist of the 4 2002 Connectathon tests suites (basic, general, special, and lock), fsx, a duplicate request cache exerciser, and bonnie++, all running simultaneously overnight. I tested a 2.4.18 and 2.2.19 UP client against 2.4 and 2.2 UP servers. The failure rate was less than 1%, primarily due to interaction between special and general tests that I haven't quite figured out yet. I see nothing in the utils package that tells me it isn't ready for prime time. I'd really like to see someone with MP platforms pick this up and test it, but other than that, I think its ready to rename as release 1.0.1. BTW, I don't know the history of release 1.0.0; It was already 1.0.1-prex when I started working on it. I have a couple of questions about fsx behavior: - It appears that with memory mapping allowed, fsx doesn't allow more than 12 operations running per test, regardless of the kernel; is this fixed with a later version of fsx, or maybe I just have my system misconfigured? My version of fsx is about 6 months old, and I didn't look at configuration at all. - In 2.2 kernels, the failure rate climbs significantly unless I cut the number of operations per test in half; once I turned off memory mapping, I ran with 5000 ops in the 2.4 kernel, but had to run about 2500 ops in the 2.2 client kernel to get the same failure rate (~1%). Is this a suprise? Tom -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Tom McNeal trmcneal@attbi.com (650)906-0761 (cell) ------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________________________ Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: bandwidth@sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs