lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1
From
Date
Rogerio Brito <rbrito@iname.com> writes:

> On Feb 11 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The reiserfs nfs problem in standard 2.4 is very simple -- it'll
> > barf as soon as you run out of file handle/inode cache. Any workload
> > that accesses enough files in parallel can trigger it.
>
> I'm just trying to evaluate if I should use reiserfs here or
> not: is this phenomenon that you describe above happening
> independently of whether I choose the knfsd or userspace nfsd?

This should be all covered extensively in the reiserfs FAQ and list archives,
here a last time:

It only applies to knfsd, but unfsd unfortunately has different problems
with reiserfs. It makes assumptions about the inode space by the underlying
filesystem by assuming that it can encode a dev_t in upper bits. Reiserfs
unlike ext2 periodically cycles through the full 31bit of inode values, and
after some weeks on a busy file system unfsd starts to complain about
conflicts. There is a patch at ftp.suse.com:/pub/people/ak/nfs/unfsd*
that works around the problem when you specify --no-cross-mounts (but
you cannot export trees of multiple file systems then with a single mount
anymore)

Please also note that the patch also adds a rather obscure bug, which triggers
very seldom (patch partly exists, but not really tested yet)

Another alternative is to use knfsd with Chris Mason's 2.4 knfsd patches.


-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:13    [W:0.070 / U:0.852 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site