On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:56:53PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:16 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Thoughts:
>> 1) I absolutely agree that NFS is far more prominent and useful than any
>> network block device, at the present time.
>>
>> 2) Nonetheless, swap over NFS is a
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 10:35:16AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>Robin Humble wrote:
>>On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>I've been waiting for years for a smart person to come along and write a
>>>POSIX-only distributed filesystem.
&g
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 03:07:46PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>It is my hope that you will put your skills towards a distributed
>filesystem :) Of the current solutions, GFS (currently in kernel)
>scales poorly, and NFS v4.1 is amazingly bloated and overly complex.
>
>I've been waiting for years
On Thu, Apr 27, 2006 at 09:07:36AM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>There should be three basic measures there - one is the single-instance
>request-response test. The idea is to see minimum latency. That test
>likes to see the interrupt throttle rate made very high, or disabled
>completely.
>
>The ag
Hi Rick,
thanks for your comments.
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 03:26:17PM -0700, Rick Jones wrote:
>Robin Humble wrote:
>>attached is a small patch for e1000 that dynamically changes Interrupt
>>Throttle Rate for best performance - both latency and bandwidth.
>>it makes e100
[I sent this to the e1000-devel folks, and they suggested netdev might
have opinions too. the below text has changed a little bit to reflect
feedback from Auke Kok]
attached is a small patch for e1000 that dynamically changes Interrupt
Throttle Rate for best performance - both latency and bandw
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 10:16:23AM -0800, Jesse Brandeburg wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, Robin Humble wrote:
>>until we turned off tso on our cluster using
>> ethtool -K eth0 tso off
>> ethtool -K eth1 tso off
...
>>the major problems only happen for >32 cpu parallel
