Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > around the highwater mark basically indicates this is working. If it
> > wasn't
> > throwing away replies where the receipt has been ack'd at the TCP
> > level, the cache would grow very large, since they would only be
> > discarded after a loonnngg timeout
<
said:
> around the highwater mark basically indicates this is working. If it wasn't
> throwing away replies where the receipt has been ack'd at the TCP
> level, the cache would grow very large, since they would only be
> discarded after a loonnngg timeout (12hours unless you've changes
> NFSRVC
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < said:
>
> > The cached replies are copies of the mbuf list done via m_copym().
> > As such, the clusters in these replies won't be free'd (ref cnt ->
> > 0)
> > until the cache is trimmed (nfsrv_trimcache() gets called after the
> > TCP layer has received an ACK for rec
<
said:
> The cached replies are copies of the mbuf list done via m_copym().
> As such, the clusters in these replies won't be free'd (ref cnt -> 0)
> until the cache is trimmed (nfsrv_trimcache() gets called after the
> TCP layer has received an ACK for receipt of the reply from the client).
I
