So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work together just fine but generally
only because the Linux
Right, but I never had this speed problem when the NFS server was
running Linux on hardware that had the quarter of the CPU power and
half the disk i/o capacity that the new Solaris-based one has.
So either Linux's NFS client was more compatible with the bugs in
Linux's NFS server and ran
On Aug 1, 2006, at 03:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really
screwed up in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS
server that the clients (linux and IRIX) liked just fine.
Yes; the Linux NFS server and client work
I've submitted these to Roch and co before on the NFS list and off
list. My favorite case was writing 6250 8k files (randomly generated)
over NFS from a solaris or linux client. We originally were getting
20K/sec when I was using RAIDZ, but between switching to RAID-5 backed
iscsi luns in a zpool
Hello all,
After setting up a Solaris 10 machine with ZFS as the new NFS server,
I'm stumped by some serious performance problems. Here are the
(admittedly long) details (also noted at
http://www.netmeister.org/blog/):
The machine in question is a dual-amd64 box with 2GB RAM and two
broadcom
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 02:17:00PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Is there anybody here who's using ZFS on Apple XRaids and serving them
via NFS? Does anybody have any other ideas what I could do to solve
this? (I have, in the mean time, converted the XRaid to plain old UFS,
and performance is
Bill Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To test this theory, run this command on your NFS server (as root):
echo '::spa -v' | mdb -k | \
awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache}' | \
mdb -k | awk '{print $1/W1}' | mdb -kw
Thanks for the suggestion.
On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 03:59:23PM -0400, Jan Schaumann wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion. However, I'm not sure if the above pipeline
is correct:
2# !! | awk '/dev.dsk/{print $1::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache}'
857a0580::print -a vdev_t vdev_nowritecache
3# !! | mdb -k
0
Hmm.
Bill Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm. It should have printed something like this:
857a0a60 vdev_nowritecache = 0 (B_FALSE)
I think there might be a problem with the CTF data (debugging info)
in U2. First, check /etc/release and make sure it says something like
Solaris
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really screwed up
in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy NFS for ages.
--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA,
On Jul 31, 2006, at 7:30 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x
really screwed up
in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server
that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy
Rich Teer wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Dale Ghent wrote:
So what does this exercise leave me thinking? Is Linux 2.4.x really screwed up
in NFS-land? This Solaris NFS replaces a Linux-based NFS server that the
Linux has had, uhhmmm (struggling to be nice), iffy NFS for ages.
The
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm sure
that's no surprise. But if you'r'e stuck on
On 7/31/06, Dale Ghent [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Jul 31, 2006, at 8:07 PM, eric kustarz wrote:
The 2.6.x Linux client is much nicer... one thing fixed was the
client doing too many commits (which translates to fsyncs on the
server). I would still recommend the Solaris client but i'm sure
14 matches
Mail list logo
