Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Bug in NFS writes with wsize > 8192. | Subject | Re: NFS packet size problem: comments? | Date | Wed, 29 Jul 1998 21:28:35 +0200 | From | Olaf Kirch <> |
| |
On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 12:42:34 BST, "Stephen C. Tweedie" wrote: > If you specify an wsize greater than 8192, Linux tries to send bigger > chunks of data. The BIG problem is when you write to an NFS mounted > partition: all packets bigger than 8192 are interpreted as bad ones by > the libc at the other end (the svc_getargs() fails).
Hm, I'm not convinced that it's libc that fails. Are you sure you're using recent unfsd? It used to have a limit of 8K writes (and would do unexpected things when you went over that limit). That has been corrected ages ago, though.
Anyway, you write:
> I think the problem is with a single constant: NFS_MAX_FILE_IO_BUFFER_SIZE. > In nfs_read_super(), the wsize provided is checked against a MAX: > else if (server->wsize >= NFS_MAX_FILE_IO_BUFFER_SIZE) > server->wsize = NFS_MAX_FILE_IO_BUFFER_SIZE; > but NFS_MAX_FILE_IO_BUFFER_SIZE is set to 16384, not 8192.
While that's not exactly according to the gospel of RFC 1094, it's not uncommon practice to use bigger sizes.
So I would say it's a bug in unfsd and/or libc.
Olaf -- Olaf Kirch | --- o --- Nous sommes du soleil we love when we play okir@monad.swb.de | / | \ sol.dhoop.naytheet.ah kin.ir.samse.qurax
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |