| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4773BFBA.70709@garzik.org> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:07:38 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> To: saeed bishara <saeed.bishara@...il.com> CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, NFS list <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org> Subject: Re: read-ahead in NFS server saeed bishara wrote: >>>> Are you using TCP? Are you using NFSv4, or an older version? >>> I'm using NFSv3/UDP. >> IMO, you definitely want TCP and NFSv4. Much better network behavior, >> with some of the silly UDP limits (plus greatly improved caching >> behavior, due to v4 delegations). > the clients of my system going to be embedded system with low > performance cpus and I need UDP as it needs less cpu power. I bet TCP + fewer revalidations + greater local pagecache activity uses less cpu power than UDP + revalidations + rx/tx network activity >>> when I run local dd with bs=4K, I can see that the average IO size is >>> more than 300KB. >> Read-ahead is easier in NFSv4, because the client probably has the file >> delegated locally, and has far less need to constantly revalidate file >> mapping(s). > I'll check that. > but what about the server side? why the issued IO's are only as twice > as the size of the NFS requests? No idea. I bet the source code can tell you :) Jeff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists