On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:55:51AM +1000, Neil Brown wrote: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010 12:54:01 -0400 > "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > For that reason we just don't support loopback mounts--they're OK for > > light testing, but it would be difficult to make them completely robust > > under load. > > I wonder if we could use 'containers' to partition available memory between > 'nfsd threads' and 'everything else'?? Probably not worth the effort. cgroups, I don't know, I guess the essential thing would be to make sure that nfsd has the resources it needs to make forward progress, however slowly--even if it means, for example, only enough to keep a single thread processing requests. --b. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
