Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!brl-adm!umd5!decuac!felix!zemon
From: jdn@mas1.UUCP (Jeff Nisewanger)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: letter from DEC
Message-ID: <9559@felix.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Oct-87 10:33:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: felix.9559
Posted: Fri Oct 16 10:33:06 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Oct-87 22:30:05 EDT
References: <8407@felix.UUCP> <8588@felix.UUCP>
Sender: zemon@felix.UUCP
Organization: Measurex Automation Systems, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 28
Approved: zemon@felix.UUCP

Reply-Path:


In article <8588@felix.UUCP> you write:
>2.0 is much slower than 1.2 was.  It has much more code to handle the
>NFS and YP.  Everything is slower.  It would be nice if you were not
>using YP that your directory searches could be faster, but they are not.
>And NFS is anything but ROBUST.  Example.  3 vaxen share nfs files systems
>one on each remotely mounted to the other two.  Users home directories are
>on hard file-systems, most NFS systems are for reading purposes.  If one
>of the 3 vaxen goes down, a user can not do a pwd on his vax in his home
>directory until the other vax is back.  Some programs, like emacs also will
>just hang waiting.  Not very robust.  We have all-but-stopped using NFS
>until it is fixed.

I haven't noticed 2.0 being generically slower however the memory paging
policy seems to have changed so that it pages memory to disk sooner than
before and so seems to have to page it back in more often.

I don't understand what YP (Yellow Pages) has to do with the speed of reading
directories. YP is essentially a network "name server". It also sounds like
you should try mounting NFS filesystems soft instead of hard so that file
operations don't block forever.

On the down side of NFS, I seem to have trouble nfs_umount'ing filesystems.
The command returns without any warning or error messages yet I can still
access the NFS filesystem after supposedly unmounting it.

	Jeff Nisewanger
	Measurex Automation Systems
	pyramid!voder!mas1!jdn