From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 23 09:36:16 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id JAA24295 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:36:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id JAA24289 for ; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 09:36:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA23727; Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:30:25 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199602231730.KAA23727@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Linux/FreeBSD NFS performance. To: rminnich@Sarnoff.COM (Ron G. Minnich) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 1996 10:30:25 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: from "Ron G. Minnich" at Feb 23, 96 09:07:48 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > It's going to take some real work to make linux nfs run well. The server > is in user mode -- no multiple nfs requests active (until they multhread > it). > also, user-mode means a couple context switches per request -- oops. Actually, this one is solvable using hot engine scheduling. They probably don't implement that yet, since they don't implement threading, but the overhead doesn't have to be as high as you think. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.