I would put a second NIC in the systems and put the NFS on it's own Network that way it will not cause as many problems. Use a fake 192.168.250 class for example on the second nics and have them on there own equipment that should deal with the network traffic problem.
-John ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shao Ming" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Doug Clements'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 4:50 PM Subject: RE: [toaster] qmail / vpopmail over nfs problem Hi ! Thanks for the reply. Its good(??) to know that I'm not the only one facing the problem. ;) BTW, what nfs client are you using? The mounting options you provided doesn't seem to exist on my linux client. What does the options below mean? -b -I -T -3 A search at google reveals similar problem faced by other guys (though theirs is not qmail/vpopmail based). Most of them attribute it to network congestion ... Some say the problem goes away when they upgrade their networking components (switch, nic, cat 5 cables etc ..) I will be getting a better dedicated switch and expensive network cables ... Will let you if that solve my problems. Regards, /sm -----Original Message----- From: Doug Clements [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:24 AM To: Shao Ming Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 01:28:19PM +0800, Shao Ming wrote: > However, I do get error like these in the system log > > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x not responding, still trying > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x OK > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x not responding, still trying > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x OK > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x not responding, still trying > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x OK > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x not responding, still trying > kernel: nfs: server x.x.x.x OK > I believe many of you guys out there have experiences on such > qmail/vpopmail over nfs implementatiopn. Can you guide me on what is > the best mount options that I should be using? And what values for rsize, wsize are you all using? I get the same thing. I've spent days trying to track it down. It doesn't seem to cause problems, but it's terribly annoying. The mount options I use are rw,-b,-i,-T,-3,-r=8192,-w=8192, but I'm using jumbo frames so most requests should fit in a single packet. --Doug
