Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 27 Jul 2011 18:44:19 -0400 (EDT) | From | Justin Piszcz <> | Subject | Re: 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.
| |