From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751101AbWFGH3a (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 03:29:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751104AbWFGH33 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 03:29:29 -0400 Received: from unthought.net ([212.97.129.88]:47630 "EHLO unthought.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751101AbWFGH33 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 03:29:29 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 09:29:28 +0200 From: Jakob Oestergaard To: Bill Davidsen Cc: Trond Myklebust , Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: Re: Linux v2.6.17-rc6 Message-ID: <20060607072928.GR15032@unthought.net> Mail-Followup-To: Jakob Oestergaard , Bill Davidsen , Trond Myklebust , Linux Kernel Mailing List References: <20060606120701.GP5132@hjernemadsen.org> <1149607627.30804.5.camel@localhost> <4485AED0.9030004@tmr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <4485AED0.9030004@tmr.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 12:35:28PM -0400, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Trond Myklebust wrote: > >On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 14:07 +0200, Klaus S. Madsen wrote: > >>Hi, > >> > >>We still experience the NFS client slow down reported by Jakob > >>Østergaard in http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/3/31/82, even with 2.6.17-rc6. > >> > >>Trond Myklebust have created a patch which we have verified solves this > >>problem for 2.6.16, 2.6.17-rc4 and 2.6.17-rc6. The patch is available > >>from http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/4/24/320, and as an attachment to > >>bugzilla bug 6557. > > > >The patch is already queued up for inclusion in 2.6.18. I'm not planning > >on submitting it for 2.6.17 since it is not a critical bug. > > I guess that depends on how much it slows down and how much you depend > on the speed of NFS. I have all of my machines sharing some local > binaries and docs, but the files are typically small and the network is > gigE, so I doubt it will hurt me. It hurts writing, not reading. And only certain cases of writing. But when it hurts it hurts quite a bit; slowdown is 10-20 times and gigE most likely won't matter. > On the other hand I do know people > running workstations with virtually everything NFS mounted, working with > large image files. > > The initial bug report makes it look as if it's about two orders of > magnitude slower, but doesn't quantify the effect on more common > sequential access operations. Sequential read and write seems to be fine. At least from my testing. This was what made this so weird; normal testing with dd or bonnie etc. showed all was fine. But link jobs over NFS were unreasonably slow. Turned out you needed a somewhat special read/write pattern (similar to ld) to trigger the slowdown. So I guess it's probably mostly people who do development over NFS who are hurt - and then only those who produce rather large executables. > If this becomes an issue in 2.6.17, I hope it will show up in -stable > before 2.6.18, the current development cycle is a bit, um, protracted... > lately. Me too :) -- / jakob