From: Jesper Krogh Subject: Re: Client cache updates missing? (2.6.31.5) Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:30:55 +0100 Message-ID: <4B140F5F.6050107@krogh.cc> References: <4B122FB2.7040505@krogh.cc> <20091130182643.GB6348@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: "J. Bruce Fields" Return-path: Received: from 2605ds1-ynoe.0.fullrate.dk ([90.184.12.24]:46654 "EHLO shrek.krogh.cc" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752546AbZK3Saz (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Nov 2009 13:30:55 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20091130182643.GB6348@fieldses.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> Wether or not it has anything to do. The file has been written to the >> NFS-server from another NFS-client. The server is running 2.6.31.5 and >> the client that above was run on is 2.6.24-24 (Ubuntu Jaunty), the >> client that wrote the file was running 2.6.29.1. > > I this v3 or v4? What's the exported filesystem? (ext3?) v3 and ext3 > It's probably a timestamp resolution problem; if the directory was > modified twice in the same second, the later change won't change the > timestamp, and so the client may assume its cache is still good. That's not nice.. but given the situation is may quite well be the problem. > Recent clients try a little harder to work around this. How recent and how much harder? > On the server > side it should help to switch to a filesystem with better than 1-second > timestamp resolution. Converting filesystems takes time, the one with people $HOME on was expected to be the last one to get "upgraded". Jesper -- Jesper