On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 10:50 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2007 at 11:17:28AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-04-19 at 11:12 -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
> > > Perhaps instead of looking at the number of bytes sent, the logic in the 
> > > last hunk of this patch should check which queue the request is sitting on.
> > 
> > ??? It would be a bug for the request to be sitting on _any_ queue when
> > it enters xprt_transmit().
> > 
> > Here is the patch that I'm currently testing.
> 
> Trond,
> 
> What is the set of patches that are you testing?  I'd like to give
> that a spin tonight as well.
> 
> It is possible that what makes my configuration more susceptible
> to the problem is the fact that the client significantly overpowers
> the server: Athlon x2 4200+ with 2Gb of RAM for the client vs. PIII
> 1Ghz 512 MB RAM for the server.  They both have gigabit ethernet
> and both NICs and the switch support jumbo frames.
> 
> Regards,
> florin
> 

See
   http://client.linux-nfs.org/Linux-2.6.x/2.6.21-rc7/

I'm giving the first 5 patches of that series (i.e.
linux-2.6.21-001-cleanup_unstable_write.dif to
linux-2.6.21-005-fix_nfsv4_resend.dif) an extra beating since those are
the ones that I feel should go into 2.6.21 final in order to fix the
read/write regressions that have been reported. They should be identical
to the patches that I posted on lkml in the past 3 days.

Please feel free to grab them and give them a test.

Cheers
  Trond
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/