lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 2.6.xx: NFS: directory motion/cam2 contains a readdir loop


On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Justin Piszcz wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 16:54 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 16:37 -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:47 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:44:20PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 03:35:01PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> >>>>>>> Currently I do not see any dupes, however I have a script that moves
> >>>>>>> images out of the directory once an hour:
> >>>>>>> 0 * * * * /usr/local/bin/move_to_old2.sh > /dev/null 2>&1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do you keep adding files to the directory while you move files out?
> >>>>> Yes, otherwise there are too many files in the directory and viewers, e.g.,
> >>>>> each geeqie (picture viewer) will use > 4-6GB of memory, so I try to keep
> >>>>> it around 5,000 pictures or less.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What's the rate of additions/removals to the directory?
> >>>>> Additions it depends, around 5,000 over a 12hr period, 416/hr, current:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> atom:/d1/motion# find cam1|wc
> >>>>> 5215 5215 166853
> >>>>> atom:/d1/motion# find cam2|wc
> >>>>> 5069 5069 162181
> >>>>> atom:/d1/motion# find cam3|wc
> >>>>> 5594 5594 178981
> >>>>> atom:/d1/motion#
> >>>>
> >>>> This sounds a lot like xfs simply filling up the directory index slots
> >>>> of files that you just moved out with new files, and nfs falsely
> >>>> claiming that this is a problem.
> >>>
> >>> Yep. There is an existing bugzilla report for this bug at
> >>>
> >>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38572
> >>>
> >>> I have a preliminary patch there that attempts to turn off the loop
> >>> detection when the directory is seen to change, however that patch still
> >>> appears to have a bug in it, and I haven't had time to figure out what
> >>> is wrong yet.
> >>>
> >>> Can you perhaps take a look, Bryan?
> >>
> >> Actually, Justin, can you test the following slight variant on the patch
> >> in the bugzilla?
> >
> > Doh! This one will actually compile....
>
> Hi,
>
> Should I try 3.0 first or retry 2.6.38 w/ this patch?
>
> Justin.
>
>

I'll give 3.0 a go first.


Justin.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-07-28 00:47    [W:0.084 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site