Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:52:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:52:30 -0400 Received: from mons.uio.no ([129.240.130.14]:30082 "EHLO mons.uio.no") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 06:52:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15609.63721.842434.183988@charged.uio.no> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 12:52:25 +0200 To: Kenneth Johansson Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: nfs problem 2.4.19-pre9 In-Reply-To: <1022962240.1186.62.camel@tiger> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid Reply-To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no From: Trond Myklebust Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> " " == Kenneth Johansson writes: >> Fair enough. Have you tried a tcpdump? > I can send you a trace if you want. I guess you only need a > trace from the first stat to read fails but it has to wait an > hour or two it's not a good time to crash just now. Problem is very apparent from the tcpdump: your client is only receiving 2 or 3 out of the 6 UDP fragments in the NFS read reply from the server. The rest is getting lost en route. Check out the NFS FAQ on nfs.sourceforge.net. The relevant section is the bit that asks questions of the form: 1) Are both server and client running on the same speed network (i.e. are both switched 100Mbit/100Mbit or 10Mbit/10Mbit)? 2) If you are using a switch, are you also using autonegotiation, or have you forced one or both of the cards (forcing is *bad* if your switch/hub is autonegotiating) Cheers, Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/