From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 5 22:18:12 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B36DB106566C for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:18:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca (esa-jnhn.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.44]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74EFA8FC0A for ; Sat, 5 Mar 2011 22:18:12 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApwEACtFck2DaFvO/2dsb2JhbACEKqMzrW2PdIEng0V2BIUchxQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.62,269,1297054800"; d="scan'208";a="113202822" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-jnhn-pri.mail.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 05 Mar 2011 17:18:11 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A860DB3F87; Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:18:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 17:18:11 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Kirill Yelizarov Message-ID: <502542028.853830.1299363491630.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <650248.21751.qm@web120514.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.202] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - IE8 (Win)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS client over udp X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Mar 2011 22:18:12 -0000 > Rick, > I have good news. I upgraded to 8.2-stable and i ran all four > different tests (nfs client new and old and over udp and tcp) and > found that there is no leak in either. ALl of them behave almost the > same, i couldn't find any difference. The speed i achieved on 1Gb link > is 52Mb/s. The only difference is that i can't umount new nfs client > even if there are no processes using this mount point. Thanks for help > Kirill > Ok, sounds good, although I have no idea what might have plugged the leak. (I looked at the revision log for clnt_dg.c and udp_usrreq.c and I couldn't spot anything that might have fixed an mbuf leak.) As for the "can't unmount", I assume that it reports the mount pt as busy? (I've never seen this for the exp. client, so I have no idea what the cause might be for this. Possibly some "failure" code path that lacks a vput()/vrele() that I've never exercised?) Anyhow, good to hear about the above, rick