:> Does anyone know why our NFS clients are sending a separate RPC for each
:> 8K buffer? If the dirty space is contiguous across a number of buffers
:> we should be able to send a *SINGLE* commit rpc to the server. That would
:> greatly reduce system overhead on both the client
I'm with you 100% I've got about 100 Bonnies of trying to optimize
Linux Clients (pre and post NFSv3 patch) vs. FreeBSD server. I've gone
to current so that I can watch it happen. I'm currently writing around
4.5M - 5.0M/sec vs. 10-15M/sec on my vinum stripe locally.
I went through a similar t
Matthew Dillon wrote:
> Does anyone know why our NFS clients are sending a separate RPC for each
> 8K buffer? If the dirty space is contiguous across a number of buffers
> we should be able to send a *SINGLE* commit rpc to the server. That would
> greatly reduce system overhead
Matthew Dillon said:
> :> Well, the issue with converting many of the macros to inline functions
> :> is with the embedded goto's and references to variables defined outside
> :> the macros. Converting them to functions would basically require
> :> rewriting a huge chunk of NFS
:> Well, the issue with converting many of the macros to inline functions
:> is with the embedded goto's and references to variables defined outside
:> the macros. Converting them to functions would basically require
:> rewriting a huge chunk of NFS code.
:>
:My working kerne
Matthew Dillon said:
> :> global references across subroutine calls! I'll send Luoqi another email.
> :>
> :> In the case of the NFS stuff, the changes have been pretty well tested
> :> so I think we are in the clear.
> :
> :On a somewhat similar note, what do you think about convert
Matthew Dillon writes:
> :On a somewhat similar note, what do you think about converting a lot
> :of the NFS macros to functions, yes i know it will be difficult, but
> :there is so much forced inlining it just seems like it would reduce
> :the codesize signifigantly and play nicer with the CPU ca
:> global references across subroutine calls! I'll send Luoqi another email.
:>
:> In the case of the NFS stuff, the changes have been pretty well tested
:> so I think we are in the clear.
:
:On a somewhat similar note, what do you think about converting a lot
:of the NFS macros to f
On Thu, 19 Aug 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>
> :On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> :> peter 1999/08/19 07:50:13 PDT
> :>
> :> Modified files:
> :> sys/nfs nfsm_subs.h xdr_subs.h
> :> Log:
> :> Convert all the nfs macros to do { blah } whi
:On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
:> peter 1999/08/19 07:50:13 PDT
:>
:> Modified files:
:> sys/nfs nfsm_subs.h xdr_subs.h
:> Log:
:> Convert all the nfs macros to do { blah } while (0) to ensure it
:> works correctly in if/else etc. eg
On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 07:50:13AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote:
> peter 1999/08/19 07:50:13 PDT
>
> Modified files:
> sys/nfs nfsm_subs.h xdr_subs.h
> Log:
> Convert all the nfs macros to do { blah } while (0) to ensure it
> works correctly in if/else etc. egcs had pr
11 matches
Mail list logo
