[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: 2.6.0 NFS-server low to 0 performance
    On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Pavel Machek wrote:

    > I've seen slow machine (386sx with ne1000) that could not receive 7 full-sized packets
    > back-to-back. You are sending 22 full packets back-to-back.
    > I'd expect some of them to be (almost deterministicaly) lost,
    > and no progress ever made.

    As you, probably, have already seen from further emails on this thread, we
    did find out that packets were indeed lost due to various performance
    reasons. And the best solution does seem to be switching to TCP-NFS, and
    making it the default choice for mount (where available) seems to be a
    very good idea.

    Thanks for replying anyway.

    > In same scenario, TCP detects "congestion" and works mostly okay.

    Hm, as long as we are already on this - can you give me a hint / pointer
    how does TCP _detect_ a congestion? Does it adjust packet sizes, some
    other parameters? Just for the curiousity sake.

    Guennadi Liakhovetski

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.043 / U:8.800 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site