From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:33:11 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:33:01 -0500 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16]:44474 "EHLO pat.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 07:32:51 -0500 To: Samuel Maftoul Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: NFS problem In-Reply-To: <20011122095251.A18254@pcmaftoul.esrf.fr> From: Trond Myklebust Date: 22 Nov 2001 13:32:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20011122095251.A18254@pcmaftoul.esrf.fr> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Samuel Maftoul writes: > I thought that NFS's underlying FS do not have any effect on > NFS performances, and that the client is not aware of the > ("local") remote FS. Am I wrong ? Does anybody have an idea to > fix the problem ? Why do you think that something on the client is 'aware' of the remote fs? My guess is that you need to redo your test using a TCP mount for the Linux machine (that's what your Solaris client is doing). My guess is that you are hitting a UDP transport reliability problem in the DirectIO case... > Is it a bug in NFS's implementation of linux kernel ? No. Cheers, Trond