Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 12 Feb 2001 10:49:17 +0100 |
| |
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/
|  |