[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100224052409.GI16175@discord.disaster>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:24:09 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] nfs: use 2*rsize readahead size
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:43:56PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:24:14PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 02:29:34PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > That's doing a cached read out of the server cache, right? You
> > > might find the results are different if the server has to read the
> > > file from disk. I would expect reads from the server cache not
> > > to require much readahead as there is no IO latency on the server
> > > side for the readahead to hide....
> >
> > FWIW, if you mount the client with "-o rsize=32k" or the server only
> > supports rsize <= 32k then this will probably hurt throughput a lot
> > because then readahead will be capped at 64k instead of 480k....
>
> I should have mentioned that in changelog.. Hope the updated one
> helps.
Sorry, my fault for not reading the code correctly.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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