lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Jul]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Bug in NFS writes with wsize > 8192.
SubjectRe: NFS packet size problem: comments?
Date
From
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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:43    [W:0.023 / U:0.276 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site