I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
root@exodus:~# df -h /mnt/fsv1
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
//fsv1/Users 446G -222G 667G - /mnt/fsv1
root@exodus:~# df /mnt/fsv1
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
//fsv1/Users 467403140 -231816588 699219728 - /mnt/fsv1
root@exodus:~# mount | grep fsv1
//fsv1/Users on /mnt/fsv1 type cifs (rw,mand)
root@exodus:~#
Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
Ideas?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CIFS-regression-in-2.6.27.8-tp20900699p20900699.html
Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Hi Dennis,
On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <[email protected]> wrote:
> I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
> the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
>
> root@exodus:~# df -h /mnt/fsv1
> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> //fsv1/Users 446G -222G 667G - /mnt/fsv1
> root@exodus:~# df /mnt/fsv1
> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> //fsv1/Users 467403140 -231816588 699219728 - /mnt/fsv1
> root@exodus:~# mount | grep fsv1
> //fsv1/Users on /mnt/fsv1 type cifs (rw,mand)
> root@exodus:~#
>
> Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
> in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
>
> Ideas?
Well, lets cc the relevant people so your report isn't lost in the noise.
On Monday, 8 of December 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Hi Dennis,
>
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
> > the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
> >
> > root@exodus:~# df -h /mnt/fsv1
> > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > //fsv1/Users 446G -222G 667G - /mnt/fsv1
> > root@exodus:~# df /mnt/fsv1
> > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > //fsv1/Users 467403140 -231816588 699219728 - /mnt/fsv1
> > root@exodus:~# mount | grep fsv1
> > //fsv1/Users on /mnt/fsv1 type cifs (rw,mand)
> > root@exodus:~#
> >
> > Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
> > in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
> >
> > Ideas?
>
> Well, lets cc the relevant people so your report isn't lost in the noise.
FWIW, it seems to be related to this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/8/7
Thanks,
Rafael
> FWIW, it seems to be related to this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/8/7
>
> Thanks,
> Rafael
Please note that in my case, I'm not seeing any samba log errors or any
problems with CPU utilization... File read access via the CIFS mount seems
to work fine, it is just that "df" is reporting completely incorrect
information for the CIFS mount.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CIFS-regression-in-2.6.27.8-tp20900699p20903107.html
Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
>>> the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
...
>>> Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
>>> in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
There were several cifs updates in .8 but AFAIU none in .7.
> FWIW, it seems to be related to this one: http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/8/7
Holger's report is about the userland SMB/CIFS server, while Denis's is
about kernelspace client code. They look like separate issues to me.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ==-- -=---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
Yes - they look distinct
Steve French
Senior Software Engineer
Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin
phone: 512-838-2294
email: sfrench at-sign us dot ibm dot com
Stefan Richter <[email protected]>
12/08/2008 02:58 PM
To
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]>
cc
Pekka Enberg <[email protected]>, Dennis Hardy
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected],
Steven French/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Greg KH <[email protected]>,
[email protected], Holger Hoffstaette <[email protected]>
Subject
Re: CIFS regression in 2.6.27.8
Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>> I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under
2.6.27.8, and
>>> the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
...
>>> Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked
fine
>>> in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
There were several cifs updates in .8 but AFAIU none in .7.
> FWIW, it seems to be related to this one:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/12/8/7
Holger's report is about the userland SMB/CIFS server, while Denis's is
about kernelspace client code. They look like separate issues to me.
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- ==-- -=---
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
> I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
> the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
The closest I had already installed was Ubuntu's most current kernel,
2.6.27-9-generic, which should be pretty close, and I did not see this
problem. I would like to see a wireshark or tcpdump trace of this to
analyze it farther. See
http://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Capture_Packets for details on this.
--
Thanks,
Steve
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 21:12:48 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Monday, 8 of December 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Dennis,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Dennis Hardy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I just mounted a network drive (Windows Server) via CIFS under 2.6.27.8, and
> > > the sizes reported by "df" are completely incorrect:
> > >
> > > root@exodus:~# df -h /mnt/fsv1
> > > Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
> > > //fsv1/Users 446G -222G 667G - /mnt/fsv1
> > > root@exodus:~# df /mnt/fsv1
> > > Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> > > //fsv1/Users 467403140 -231816588 699219728 - /mnt/fsv1
> > > root@exodus:~# mount | grep fsv1
> > > //fsv1/Users on /mnt/fsv1 type cifs (rw,mand)
> > > root@exodus:~#
> > >
> > > Does anyone else see this sort of behavior with 2.6.27.8? This worked fine
> > > in 2.6.27.6 (we skipped 2.6.27.7)...
> > >
I tried it on both i386 and x86_64 and had no problems. Is this client
non-x86 by any chance?
> I tried it on both i386 and x86_64 and had no problems. Is this client
> non-x86 by any chance?
Curious...my kernel is CONFIG_X86_32=y and CONFIG_X86=y, CONFIG_MK6=y.
Perhaps this could be an issue with the Windows Server side (Windows Home
Server, latest Windows SPs, etc.) Maybe MSFT introduced some "improvement"
in a recent update that caused an incompatibility of some sort. I can try
mounting some other Windows machines via CIFS from the 2.6.27.8 end and see
what happens, plus boot back to 2.6.27.6 and compare.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CIFS-regression-in-2.6.27.8-tp20900699p20924383.html
Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008 13:47:56 -0800 (PST)
Dennis Hardy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I tried it on both i386 and x86_64 and had no problems. Is this client
> > non-x86 by any chance?
>
> Curious...my kernel is CONFIG_X86_32=y and CONFIG_X86=y, CONFIG_MK6=y.
>
> Perhaps this could be an issue with the Windows Server side (Windows Home
> Server, latest Windows SPs, etc.) Maybe MSFT introduced some "improvement"
> in a recent update that caused an incompatibility of some sort. I can try
> mounting some other Windows machines via CIFS from the 2.6.27.8 end and see
> what happens, plus boot back to 2.6.27.6 and compare.
>
There is a problem with CIFS in 2.6.27.8, but it mainly manifests
itself as a kthread that doesn't shut down when it should (regression
due to a missing couple of prerequisite patches). I've got a patch for
2.6.27.9 that should fix that problem (assuming there is a .9)
The fixes that went into 2.6.27.8 were mostly patches to fix races on
mount and unmount and some fixes for socket handling. The problem
you've described seems very consistent and localized to an area that
wasn't patched in .8.
I could easily be wrong, but the problem you've described seems more
likely to be a server issue. If you can get binary network captures
between the client and server like Steve F. requested, then we should
be able to confirm it either way...
--
Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> I could easily be wrong, but the problem you've described seems more
> likely to be a server issue.
Gentlemen, I am heading out to get an "L" (for loser) tattooed to my
forehead. MSFT pushed some updates for the Windows Server previously, and
when we switched to 2.6.27.8 we rebooted everything, including the Windows
Server, which activated the updates. MSFT broke volume size reporting --
even from other Windows machines! We should have checked this before
posting.
Please accept my deepest apologies for this -- Linux is, as always, working
great.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/CIFS-regression-in-2.6.27.8-tp20900699p20942054.html
Sent from the linux-kernel mailing list archive at Nabble.com.