🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan21.180618.120415@ipgaix.unipg.it> luca@dedalo.unipg.it (Luca Priorelli) writes:
-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
-

 I wish I knew! I've been told by their tech support that they're
 rewriting a lot of the NFS code, but this was about 2 months ago.

 I'm happy with the base tcp/ip package, although there are quarks
 in the terminal support (ansi, vt100, etc...), but NFS is horrible.
 I've been complaining about this since Sept 92 and they appeared to
 be aware of the problem back then. We're approaching 5 months and I'm
 still getting the same bogus performance ( 20-40K /sec average 
 read/write ). This is with a 7168 buffer, it's much worse at 4096.
 What kind of read/write transfer rates are people getting????

        Thanks -- alann

   alann lopes:        alopes@ucsd.edu       -- internet
   (619) 534-5438      ALOPES@UCSD           -- bitnet