From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264212AbUEXO7T (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:59:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264274AbUEXO7T (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:59:19 -0400 Received: from mx2.datanet.hu ([194.149.13.163]:33293 "EHLO mx2.datanet.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264212AbUEXO7R (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 May 2004 10:59:17 -0400 Message-ID: <40B211A3.3010904@flexys.hu> Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:15:47 +0200 From: Tibor Kendl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; hu-HU; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030312 X-Accept-Language: hu, en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: A question about disk-cacheing Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Dear list members in linux-kernel! I had the following experiences with linux network file system clients. Under Intel P4 machine, Linux Debain Sarge distribution and Linux-2.6.5 kernel i tried to use a Novell Server shrared volumes, and i used the ncpfs package for this purpose. This ncpfs package works very good, i can read/write Novell's shared directories from my linux host, in a 10-12 user intra network with 2-4 MB/sec. I have a database application which stores it's data in files, instead of an SQL or any type of database servers. When i store that files in a Novell file server, that application is very slow. I set up an another linux box with a Samba file server, and tested that with the same data files and in this case it run 6-8 times faster than with Novell/ncpfs client. I've spied the communication between client/server with network performance monitors, and it had been found out that the ncpfs client have 6-8 times bigger network traffic than the smbfs client. It seems to me that smbfs caches the files and this makes it's network traffic much less than on the other case. The mount option sync and async had no effect on ncpmount. My question is: Who is responsible for file caching? The linux kernel, the kernel filesystem drivers, or something else? Does file caching works different on a local ext2,reiser and on a network nfs,smbfs,ncpfs file system? Yours Faithfully! Tibor Kendl