Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 02 Feb 2000 17:45:16 +0100 | From | Richard Ems <> | Subject | Re: BUG REPORT: NFS/SMP file corruption |
| |
Looking at my mount options I found that autofs was mounting the filesystems with the "soft" option enabled. After reading the man page for mount I changed it to "hard" and run my tests again. My tests consisted of a 10 times loop, running everytime 4 subshells in the background and waiting for all 4 to finish before starting the next loop. Each subshell starts my first small program and writes a binary and an ascii file (20M and 37M) and then my second small programm reads the binary file and writes it in ascii again (again 37M). After comparing all 40 files I found no differences. The only changes I made was the "hard" option for mount and rsize=8192,wsize=8192.
Are the possible file corruptions or differences with the "soft" option supposed to be there? If so it's a very dangerous option! While running my tests yesterday night I got a couple of "nfs: server 'hostname' not responding" and some of the corrupted files were at these times, but not all of them. I was running the same tests as explained above (but with "soft,timeo=30" and without the rsize and wsize options), and I got 28 from 40 files corrupted. 13 of them where at the same time as the server was not responding (why not??? no idea!) but the other 15 became corrupted at other times!
I hope this helps for something ...
Did all this errors appear because of the "soft" option?
Cheers, richard
-- Richard Ems ... e-mail: r.ems@gmx.net ... Computer Science, University of Hamburg
Unix IS user friendly. It's just selective about who its friends are.
- 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.tux.org/lkml/
| |