On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:54:57PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:03:46PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Both client and server are running the same 2.6.1-bk2 kernel with TCP-NFS.
> > SMP, Highmem, & preempt.
>
> I have four clients that are all having this problem also, three 2.6, and
> one 2.4 client.
>
> Using TCP-NFS they all have stale nfs handles even after a reboot (only
> rebooted one to try with 2.4.23), but changed one to UDP-NFS, and it didn't
> have the stale handles.
>
> Will do more testing with UDP-NFS.
No, TCP and UDP NFS both get stale file handles. :(
Can anyone reproduce?
----- End forwarded message -----
On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:54:57PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:03:46PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > Both client and server are running the same 2.6.1-bk2 kernel with TCP-NFS.
> > > SMP, Highmem, & preempt.
> >
> > I have four clients that are all having this problem also, three 2.6, and
> > one 2.4 client.
> >
> > Using TCP-NFS they all have stale nfs handles even after a reboot (only
> > rebooted one to try with 2.4.23), but changed one to UDP-NFS, and it didn't
> > have the stale handles.
> >
> > Will do more testing with UDP-NFS.
>
> No, TCP and UDP NFS both get stale file handles. :(
>
> Can anyone reproduce?
Hi,
I was able to reproduce stale handles a long time ago.
A workable solution for me was to export using 'no_subtree_check'
on the server. Like this:
/data \
tony.local.net(rw,sync,no_root_squash,no_subtree_check) \
Could you please try and reply to my address if t works ?
Thanks,
Patrick
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 02:03:36PM +0100, Patrick Mau wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 09:06:42PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Can anyone reproduce?
>
> Hi,
>
> I was able to reproduce stale handles a long time ago.
> A workable solution for me was to export using 'no_subtree_check'
> on the server. Like this:
>
> /data \
> tony.local.net(rw,sync,no_root_squash,no_subtree_check) \
>
> Could you please try and reply to my address if t works ?
I'll have to give it a try next time I get a chance to reboot this server.
I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
> /dev/null" on the nfs share.
Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
build problems and such), as well as over 20 nfs client patches. Haven't
checked what they all do, but some of them are RPC_GSS support mixed in with
the bug fixes.
Mike
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:40:31AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
> such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
> > /dev/null" on the nfs share.
>
> Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
> patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
Stale filehandles is the main problem right now, and I don't see how
nfs_raname would be related (just that it was there while I was having
trouble with the stale file handles...)
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/nfsd-01-stale-filehandles-fixes.patch
This one looks particularly interesting...
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:55:04AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:40:31AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
> > such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
> > > /dev/null" on the nfs share.
> >
> > Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
> > patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
>
> Stale filehandles is the main problem right now, and I don't see how
> nfs_raname would be related (just that it was there while I was having
> trouble with the stale file handles...)
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/nfsd-01-stale-filehandles-fixes.patch
>
> This one looks particularly interesting...
>
Most of the nfs client patches are for NFS4 or RPCSEC_GSS. Except for:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/
nfs-26-sock_disconnect.patch
nfs-31-attr.patch
nfs-client-deadlock-fix.patch
nfs-fix-bogus-setattr-calls.patch
nfs-open-intent-fix.patch
nfs-optimise-COMMIT-calls.patch
nfs-readonly-mounts-fix.patch
nfs-rpc-debug-oops-fix.patch
These might be interesting to test, but so far I haven't had troubles with
the stock Linus 2.6 nfs3 client.
Mike
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:40:31AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
> > such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
> > > /dev/null" on the nfs share.
> >
> > Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
> > patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
>
> Stale filehandles is the main problem right now, and I don't see how
> nfs_raname would be related (just that it was there while I was having
> trouble with the stale file handles...)
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/nfsd-01-stale-filehandles-fixes.patch
>
> This one looks particularly interesting...
I was getting alot of nfsv3 stale file handles with 2.6.1-mm1 so I dropped back to 2.6.1.
mm5 seems to have fixed everything.
Jonathan
I have been having them consistently with 2.6.0 and 2.6.1 clients
against 2.6.0 and/or 2.6.1 servers.
2.6.1 and 2.6.0 against a 2.4.x server has no problems.
Jonathan Boler wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:40:31AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
>>>I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
>>>such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
>>>
>>>>/dev/null" on the nfs share.
>>>
>>>Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
>>>patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
>>
>>Stale filehandles is the main problem right now, and I don't see how
>>nfs_raname would be related (just that it was there while I was having
>>trouble with the stale file handles...)
>>
>>http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/nfsd-01-stale-filehandles-fixes.patch
>>
>>This one looks particularly interesting...
>
>
> I was getting alot of nfsv3 stale file handles with 2.6.1-mm1 so I dropped back to 2.6.1.
>
> mm5 seems to have fixed everything.
>
> Jonathan
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/