From owner-freebsd-current Fri Dec 17 12: 6:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (mass.cdrom.com [204.216.28.184]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5FD157A1 for ; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:06:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA00768; Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:09:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199912172009.MAA00768@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Serious server-side NFS problem In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:07:56 PST." <199912171707.JAA63193@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 12:09:41 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > :< said: > : > :> the IP and UDP checksum guessing, but more that I think you'll find that > :> a considerable amount of the inbound NFS traffic handling is actually > :> performed in the interrupt context > : > :If it is, then there is a serious bug. > > No serious NFS traffic handling is done in the interrupt context. The > packets are essentially just queued up for nfsd to deal with. That's interesting then, since your results are somewhat at odds with what I've seen so far regarding interrupt load for network traffic. Do you have any profiling results that point the finger more directly at anything? -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message