Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2000 14:32:43 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: reducing the number of NFSv3 commit ops Message-ID: <20000404143243.S20770@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <14570.22237.61025.935384@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>; from gallatin@cs.duke.edu on Tue, Apr 04, 2000 at 04:59:00PM -0400 References: <14570.10864.359054.10598@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <20000404141641.P20770@fw.wintelcom.net> <14570.22237.61025.935384@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> [000404 14:25] wrote: > > Alfred Perlstein writes: > > > > > > Can anybody tell me if doing something like this is fundamentally > > > broken? Is it worth pursuing? > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/~alfred/nfs_supercommit_broken.diff > > > > only grab as many adjacent blocks as possible, you don't want to > > scan the entire file's buffer list for each commit, you also don't > > want to interfere with other client's caching forcing sever commits > > on thier behalf. > > > > I'll look at that tonight. But before I do -- why is it broken? > (the name sorta implies that it us ;) I'm not sure, i did it a while back and ran out of time to get it working, it functions in the strategy layer and tries to grab adjacent commit blocks to the already clustered IO. I think I may have some math errors or something, I haven't had time to give it a retry in a while. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000404143243.S20770>