[lkml]   [1996]   [Oct]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Memory upgrade: not faster / nfs
In, article <"sim0s4.fzi.178:">,
Christoph Trautwein <> writes:
> ------- =_aaaaaaaaaa0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Problem:
> ! NFS is a filesystem. Filesystems are not cached.
> ! The only thing that's cached in UN*X are block
> ! devices. This is the wrong place to cache.
This is true for UN*X in general, I'd say, but NOT for Linux 2.0.

-rwxr-xr-x 1 smurf user 412521 Feb 21 1996 XXX.eps

work:/uneu/urlichs 1243$ time cat XXX.eps >/dev/null
0.01user 0.22system 0:02.07elapsed 11%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+0minor)pagefaults 0swaps

work:/uneu/urlichs 1244$ time cat XXX.eps >/dev/null
0.02user 0.04system 0:00.08elapsed 75%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+0minor)pagefaults 0swaps

YOU tell me how to pull 5 MBytes/sec over a 10 MBit/sec Ethernet if you
don't believe me. :-)

> Is it correct how I see these things?

> Why are filesystems not buffered?
Because initially, there were no file systems without a corresponding block
device, and buffering the whole device means fewer numbers to store. Plus,
the metadata on a file system obviously can't be cached in the file cache
because there's no file associated with them.

> Is there a nfs implementation that does buffering?
Yes. See above.

But we've only fondled the surface of that subject.
--Virginia Masters [of Master & Johnson]
Matthias Urlichs \ noris network GmbH / Xlink-POP Nürnberg
Schleiermacherstraße 12 \ Linux+Internet / EMail:
90491 Nürnberg (Germany) \ Consulting+Programming+Networking+etc'ing
PGP: 1024/4F578875 1B 89 E2 1C 43 EA 80 44 15 D2 29 CF C6 C7 E0 DE
Click <A HREF="">here</A>. 42

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:37    [W:0.040 / U:3.452 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site