From owner-freebsd-fs Sun May 11 14:12:18 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA12988 for fs-outgoing; Sun, 11 May 1997 14:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nlsystems.com (nlsys.demon.co.uk [158.152.125.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA12982 for ; Sun, 11 May 1997 14:12:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from herring.nlsystems.com (herring.nlsystems.com [10.0.0.2]) by nlsystems.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id WAA01362; Sun, 11 May 1997 22:11:30 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 11 May 1997 22:11:30 +0100 (BST) From: Doug Rabson To: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS between 2.2.1 and 2.1.7.1 In-Reply-To: <199705112054.RAA11556@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-fs@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 11 May 1997, Joao Carlos Mendes Luis wrote: > Just guessing: Would it work if I simply copied the sys/nfs subdir from > -current to my 2.2 branch ? I'm afraid that won't work. The filesystems interfaces have diverged somewhat between 2.2 and 3.0. > > // If you are not already, you should track the 2.2 branch with CVSup and > // watch for the NFS fixes when I commit then (in a week or two probably). > > I have always followed FreeBSD-stable/src, with the ftp mirror package. > > If there's something similar for 2.2, I'll follow it too. That would probably work. You should try CVSup though - its a much more efficient use of bandwidth and its really easy to use. Read section 16.2 in the handbook. > > // trace and maybe we can figure out what is broken. > > It was sending write requests, and receiving no answer at all. Maybe a > problem on the server (2.1.7) side ? Hmm. I just fixed a bug like that in 3.0 but that bug was definately not present in 2.1.x. I am not supporting the NFS in 2.1.x at all really, so I don't know what it could be. The NFS in 2.2 and 3.0 is really much better than 2.1. It supports the newer version 3 protocol which has much better write performance (2-3 Mb/sec on my unloaded 100baseTX test network). I am also actively supporting this version and will try to fix any bugs which I can reproduce. > > I also used the dumbtimer option with no success. Now I'm trying with > tcp mounts, and seems to be much more stable. I'm up for more than one > hour, stressing the NFS system, and had no system locks until now. > > Of course, it's slower. :( Like I said, watch for the next batch of fixes to 2.2's NFS and see if it helps. You might consider subscribing to the cvs-sys@freebsd.org mailing list so that you can see when fixes are committed to the tree. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 951 1891