Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:3605 comp.protocols.nfs:4206 Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.protocols.nfs Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!LRZnews!schneck From: schneck@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE (Bernhard Schneck) Subject: Re: 386BSD: 16550's vs. NFS Message-ID: <schneck.713651159@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE> Sender: news@news.lrz-muenchen.de (Mr. News) Organization: Leibniz-Rechenzentrum, Muenchen (Germany) References: <EICHIN.92Aug9004425@tsx-11.mit.edu> <1992Aug9.083431.5746@BitBlocks.COM> <oc27njc@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:25:59 GMT Lines: 18 >> Try increasing the timeout value for nfs mounts. Something like >> >> mount -t nfs -o timeo=T ... remote-dir mount-point >> >> where # is timeout value in 0.1 sec intervals. >It can alos help to reduce the block sizes. >And radically bloat the attribute cache expirations. .... and use ppp or nfs over TCP or turn on UDP checksums ... you might loose big with NFS otherwise, even with MNP4/V.42! \Bernhard. -- Bernhard Schneck Internet: Bernhard.Schneck@Physik.TU-Muenchen.DE TU Muenchen Physik 8046 Garching "There is no problem so big that it cannot be Germany run away from" Illusions, Richard Bach