Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:47:50 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "John W. DeBoskey" <jwd@unx.sas.com> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: -current NFS problem Message-ID: <199810160747.AAA01489@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 16 Oct 1998 00:46:29 EDT." <199810160446.AAA23559@bb01f39.unx.sas.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No. Lack of ACCESS caching makes us slow and eats the network (because > > we are very good at generating/sending/receiving them). ... > I have 50 266 Mhz pc's clustered around 3 netapp F630 Filers used > as compile servers for an in-house distributed make facility. Yeep. Looks like a pretty monster build farm. I take it you're not targetting FreeBSD with the build itself? > 85% of the traffic to the netapp(s) 'was' due to access calls. I > do not recommend it for public consumption, but the following patch > reduces the access overhead to less than 20%. Hmm. I would (naively) have expected this to reduce it to 0. Where else do we make access RPCs from? > ps: BTW, I cannot amd mount the filers due to a problem with GARBAGE_ARGS > being returned from clnt_call() in amfs_host.c\fetch_fhandle() regardless > of whether I force a V2 or V3 mount protocol. This is a 'random' error > which I can get to occurr approximately 1 out of 10 mounts. Is this the "old" amd, or the "new" am-utils amd? It sounds like one or more uninitialised fields in the request structure... -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199810160747.AAA01489>