On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 09:40:19AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:42:35 -0400 Trond Myklebust > <Trond.Myklebust@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > So it is obvious that there is sometimes value in using readdirplus, > > > it is equally obvious that there is sometimes a cost. > > > > > > Switching the default from "not paying the cost when it is big" to > > > "always paying the cost" is wrong. > > > > That's what the nordirplus mount flag is for. Keeping an arbitrary limit > > in the face of evidence that it is hurting is equally wrong. > > > > If people didn't need 'nordirplus' previously to get acceptable > performance, and do need it now, then that is a regression. Agreed. Unfortunately, reversion at this point would also be a regression for a different group of folks. A smaller one, since *their* problem was fixed only more recently, but still there's probably no sensible way out of this but forwards.... --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
