> I was not implying that the use of spare memory as cache was bizarre.
> I *know* that spare memory will be used this way, and that in general
> this is a good thing.
> What is bizaarre is that one could *INCREASE* system resources and
> performance *GETS WORSE*. This is unintuitive and inverse to most
> "normal" expectations, IOW, BIZARRE!
Not at all! The more resources you're managing, it usually takes more time
to search for what you're looking for. In some cases, the extra overhead
can take a system that is 80% busy to one that can't keep up with the
load. That's probably not the case here.
I have a lot of NFS experience, but not on Linux. Please be real
careful identifying what is client behaviour vs. server behaviour.
The CPU load is on the server, and the client is nearly idle because
the server is so slow to respond, right?
You mentioned a load average > 40. The first thing I'd do is run
"ps" and see what processes are so busy. Is the backup bogging down
too or does that just keep rolling along? If you suspend it, does
NFS performance jump right back up?
Data from /usr/sbin/*stat and /proc can be very interesting, I'm not sure
what's the best for Linux.
-Ric Werme
_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
