🚀 go-pugleaf

Every once in a while I get upset of the poor performance of 
IBM NFS and hope that new CSDs would solve the problem.
Instead... no way.

I have just applied the latest CSD found in hobbes and:

- I can now mount an exported OS/2 directory from a SPARCstation 
  (before I couldn't) but when I try to copy a file from the
  Sun to the OS/2 (running on a PS/2 95), well... it takes about 11 minutes
  to copy a 2Mbytes file!!!
  
- Emacs does not work yet.

And here are some timings copying a 2Mbytes file:

machine        type
A             ps/2 40 386sx 20Mhz
B             ps/2 80 386dx 20Mhz
C             ps/2 95 486dx 33Mhz
D             SPARCstation  33Mhz

A --> C  (write)    39"
A <-- C  (read)     49"  (this is the first time a see a NFS read taking
                          more than a write)

A --> D             35"
A <-- D           1'05" (??? more than above!)

B --> D             35"
B <-- D             20"  (well, sounds better!)

C --> D             26"
C <-- D              6"  (not bad)

D --> C           11'10"  (??? this must be a BIG BUG)
D <-- C               2"  (I cannot believe this!)

Well, can you find any sense from these figures?

Why D reads in 6" and A in 1'05"? OK it is a faster machine but this cannot
explain the difference. Moreover, it takes more to read than to write!
B which is almost the same speed does much better.

The ethernet adapter? 3C509 for A and 3C525 for B and C. 3C509 is 
advertized as a very fast one (or it isn't?). The counterproof is
easy. I have installed LAN server 3.0 on C and LAN requester on A.
Well, I cannot tell the difference between a local disk and the remote
disk from C.

Why IBM NFS is so bad?

Luca Priorelli