On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 10:50 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote: > On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:17:28AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:12 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > Perhaps instead of looking at the number of bytes sent, the logic in the > > > last hunk of this patch should check which queue the request is sitting > > > on. > > > > ??? It would be a bug for the request to be sitting on _any_ queue when > > it enters xprt_transmit(). > > > > Here is the patch that I'm currently testing. > > Trond, > > What is the set of patches that are you testing? I'd like to give > that a spin tonight as well. > > It is possible that what makes my configuration more susceptible > to the problem is the fact that the client significantly overpowers > the server: Athlon x2 4200+ with 2Gb of RAM for the client vs. PIII > 1Ghz 512 MB RAM for the server. They both have gigabit ethernet > and both NICs and the switch support jumbo frames. > > Regards, > florin >
See http://client.linux-nfs.org/Linux-2.6.x/2.6.21-rc7/ I'm giving the first 5 patches of that series (i.e. linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif to linux-2.6.21-005-fix_nfsv4_resend.dif) an extra beating since those are the ones that I feel should go into 2.6.21 final in order to fix the read/write regressions that have been reported. They should be identical to the patches that I posted on lkml in the past 3 days. Please feel free to grab them and give them a test. Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
