[OpenAFS] replication over slower bandwidth

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:23:43 -0500

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig63DCA3EAB32D2C170FAE27EE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
  <head>
    <meta content=3D"text/html; charset=3DUTF-8" http-equiv=3D"Content-Ty=
pe">
    <title></title>
  </head>
  <body bgcolor=3D"#ffffff" text=3D"#000000">
    On 2/11/2012 7:02 PM, muayad y wrote:
    <blockquote
cite=3D"mid:1329004950.38268.YahooMailClassic@web122102.mail.ne1.yahoo.co=
m"
      type=3D"cite">
      <table border=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0">
        <tbody>
          <tr>
            <td style=3D"font: inherit;" valign=3D"top">when maxPacketSiz=
e
              has been uncommented, it did change=C2=A0 rx_connection str=
uct
              behavoir,=C2=A0 rx_connection is being called on vos (users=
pace
              code)<br>
              Or I am not reading the header correctly? </td>
          </tr>
        </tbody>
      </table>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    The 'maxPacketSize' field is not used by anything in the source
    tree.=C2=A0 If it were used, the source code would not have compiled
    while it was part of the structure.=C2=A0 <br>
    <br>
    Are you seeing the same performance issues with the 1.6 version of
    'vos'?=C2=A0 <br>
    <br>
    Can you confirm that commenting out the field and rebuilding
    restores the slow transmission speed with the 1.4 vos?<br>
    <br>
    If the answer is 'yes' to the previous question, instead of removing
    the comment from maxPacketSize, do you see a similar performance
    benefit if you add a new field later in the structure?=C2=A0 Perhaps
    after 'refCount' or 'securityIndex'?<br>
    <br>
    As Simon said, if there is a problem with how this structure is
    being processed, we probably have a similar problem throughout the
    code base.=C2=A0=C2=A0 It is important for us to understand what the =
cause of
    the problem is.<br>
    <br>
    <br>
  </body>
</html>


--------------enig63DCA3EAB32D2C170FAE27EE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPN71hAAoJENxm1CNJffh4rEgIAItIvlCKP0OuDH9fE7h/Jpl8
LkfhnHV4FikHmvQCywf/0rOPOPhAVURL/lp3Gzd32zqjAfFUFFCgeh79eKz2QUkH
uxaNXmwJPCuj9vmOeR5oKLWwC75sBeFC8KEjvlrF0+xRS7TAxO4rDa3c3fwdEgBy
S8DMHzPwudukpUijHD9hN3cKzvtmPs94KwwyVi6aNOsQABgHiRlRgtuEaXMdtQYO
7M3dMfHg4vBh+372gW7+U0ZEn2MQkdyRKTHCQxh5UJqF8OO5LPzx3kBVE8Yizh1X
/s0jFBsoueXZQnTTpXfyMbHY2BpXnOVtDxq/PA5F20czK7SNmI+GYao2KHfQQlM=
=MLWA
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig63DCA3EAB32D2C170FAE27EE--