[lkml]   [2001]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: nfs is stupid ("getfh failed")
    On  September 12, wrote:
    > (Neil Brown) writes:
    > > On September 10, wrote:
    > > > cachefs sucks. It doesn't seem to cache stat(2) information.
    > > > Doing ls -F in a ~100-entries directory takes several seconds over
    > > > a link with 50ms round-trip time.
    > >
    > > Well, I said "concept" not "implementation", but I suspect that
    > > Solaris cachefs does cache stat information. Maybe you just need to
    > > increase the timeouts for the attribute cache.
    > Considering that I did several ls'es on the order of milliseconds
    > apart I doubt that would help...

    I just tried out cachefs (for the first time) on Solaris2.6.
    I mounted my home directory (which has 125 entries) and did
    ls -F
    while watching network traffic.

    Except of the first time, and after every 30 seconds (the default
    attribute cache timeout) there was only 1 RPC request for each
    ls -F
    and that was to check the modify time on the directory.
    But then that is exactly the same traffic that I see when I do
    ls -F
    in my home directory over normal NFS (v2).

    I could do 100 "ls -F" runns in about 4 seconds.
    This is on regular 100Mbit ethernet.

    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 13:03    [W:2.571 / U:0.020 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site