[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:0.072 / U:1.424 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site