I've done some more testing and posted my initial results here: https://wiki.linux-nfs.org/wiki/index.php/Readdir_performance_results. If anybody has suggestions for better ways to organize the data, please let me know. I'll also try to post some graphs in the next couple of days. - Bryan On 03/17/2011 01:18 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote: > 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
