Re: NFS vs jumbograms?

[Masanobu SAITOH <msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost>]

(2013/06/04 5:50), David Holland wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Mouse wrote:
>   > At $JOB, we have two i386 machines with wm interfaces connected
>   > back-to-back with a short patch cable and a /30 subnet of 192.168.  One
>   > is NFS-serving some disk space to the other over this link.  They are
>   > running 4.0.1 (with a few tweaks of mine, but nothing touching
>   > sys/nfs); while it's fallen off the end of official support, I thought
>   > someone might happen to recall enough to be useful....
>
> nfs hasn't changed much, so if the problem is in nfs (rather than in
> netinet) it's probably still in -current.
>
> not that this actually helps.
>
> Also note that there are a fair number of cases in nfs where lost
> packets result in timeouts that don't get handled properly causing
> things to wedge. If you haven't yet, try using tcp mounts as that
> tends to avoid exercising some of those cases.

 I sometimes heard that wm had some problems with jumbo MTU, but I've
never checked whether it really has a bug or not. I suspect the bug
is not in NFS stack but in wm.

 I don't use jumbo MTU, so usually don't test the function when I add
the support of a new chip. Sorry :(
If someone show me a reproduceable configuraton, I'll try to fix it.

 Regards.

--
-----------------------------------------------
                SAITOH Masanobu (msaitoh%execsw.org@localhost
                                 msaitoh%netbsd.org@localhost)