From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: Utils package testing Date: 12 Jun 2002 14:21:39 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <3D062664.C93B7399@attbi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: NFS maillist Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17I78M-0001ZJ-00 for ; Wed, 12 Jun 2002 05:21:54 -0700 To: Tom McNeal In-Reply-To: <3D062664.C93B7399@attbi.com> 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: >>>>> " " == Tom McNeal writes: > - Does locking take a much longer time in ext3 file systems, > or in the patched environment? In the patched kernel, > exporting ext3, the connectathon lock tests seemed to take > up to 10x as long, but that was over many hours, with a big > load. When run just once with the other connectathon tests, > it didn't seem so different. Flushing to disk would be slower with ext3. As this is done every time somebody takes or releases a lock... > - The client net statistics in /proc/net/rpc/nfs seems to remain > at 0 regardless of the activity and regardless of the > kernel. I'm going to start browsing through the kernel code > to see if there is something obvious, but maybe someone > knows about this already. I didn't see anything in the > mailing list. I've never touched the 'net statistics' field, and I've no idea what it purports to measure. As far as I'm concerned it can be removed entirely... Cheers, Trond _______________________________________________________________ Sponsored by: ThinkGeek at http://www.ThinkGeek.com/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs