From: Kasparek Tomas Subject: Re: NFS corruption in 2.6.18.2? Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:24:56 +0100 Message-ID: <20061123172456.GG40079@fit.vutbr.cz> References: <50e235a50d0f2b4fb34eed1c840565e3@swip.net> <20061123161738.GF40079@fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GnIJv-0003IS-JJ for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:25:08 -0800 Received: from kazi.fit.vutbr.cz ([147.229.8.12]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1GnIJu-0004KJ-7A for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 09:25:08 -0800 Received: from kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (envelope-from kasparek@fit.vutbr.cz) (8.13.8/8.13.7) with ESMTP id kANHOuhC099887 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:24:56 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kasparek@localhost) by kazi.fit.vutbr.cz (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id kANHOu2g099885 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 23 Nov 2006 18:24:56 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kasparek@fit.vutbr.cz) To: "nfs@lists.sourceforge.net" In-Reply-To: <20061123161738.GF40079@fit.vutbr.cz> List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Thu, Nov 23, 2006 at 05:17:38PM +0100, Kasparek Tomas wrote: > > > >have seen this behaviour with kernel 2.6.18 and above up to 19-rc4. > > > Reported this, but no response. > > > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/28/89 > > > > Your test script doesn't use any form of locking. How are you ensuring > > that only one client has the file open at a time? > > I use no locking at all, it's just synthetic test, I don't expect data to > be ordered or whatever, but the problem is blocks of zeros inserted. > It behaves right with the last 2.6.16.32, zeros are contained if clients > are 2.6.18.3 and 2.6.19-rc4. > > I'm going to do more testing in next few days, so hoe bring some new info. > > As I wrote before, it does not depend on the server (tried with FreeBSD > server and several versions of linux 2.6.16.x and 2.6.18.x). Just update: 2.6.17.14 is ok -- Tomas Kasparek, PhD student E-mail: kasparek@fit.vutbr.cz CVT FIT VUT Brno, BI/140a Web: http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~kasparek Bozetechova 2, 612 66 Fax: +420 54114-1270 Brno, Czech Republic Phone: +420 54114-1220 ICQ: 293092805 jabber: tomas.kasparek@jabber.cz GPG: 2F1E 1AAF FD3B CFA3 1537 63BD DCBE 18FF A035 53BC ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs