From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA3571C8629 for ; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:29:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744378178; cv=none; b=rz6rfNBXr0/kfnanmHjhOEekXXlL4kIB8BRPqB8Oa4+CMu45LZz2yGYd3zpmamvZ9UGS7FVmPQDVy/mVTpAjOBqG/v3DSfl1xbZp8IlzM8SBcydJv+GsWhWPW8ifIQZBOeq3cZFQNC7o+Gw9Sb3+TcbXFMQH0mjCnEAHvUct1Lk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1744378178; c=relaxed/simple; bh=5JokcmpHTTlexsyQexUD1xcpIZhwJr1NKHDc4G6vxgg=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=iPdrT36SmI1wlj1AeVku9QwG7LMdLydEMWepWW411ekBg1krV7ZbYQ37rHvpK/mqWzV9sG0EFfwwaGwhRGKGdeC/0Cx+ec4AHiFepypW3lsc3oio4pZh8MN2VAu5Ceb9RIpQAt+cuo2zyAMVugSQnN3HaZrxRJaFBSsvPVonQYg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=Jbna7hdv; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="Jbna7hdv" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1744378175; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5JokcmpHTTlexsyQexUD1xcpIZhwJr1NKHDc4G6vxgg=; b=Jbna7hdvpf6XUUE0s732TM/g9qd/6G+qmqyrKfI16nZWd8HFLWLIzN5Rb5sV19gBI68zVO C3blpuXYNRX7m6F3zDK0L5iwjPRVsGzLBIMkBpdgREzIpwEoItyMZk6UdQuaD55QJm+7sA itBInCeNLwHqq/FaU9P6K4LVfdcfauk= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-101-x-q7NTukPkW4SVJuUNAqIg-1; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:29:33 -0400 X-MC-Unique: x-q7NTukPkW4SVJuUNAqIg-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: x-q7NTukPkW4SVJuUNAqIg_1744378172 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48797180AF52; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:29:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.37.1] (unknown [10.22.58.2]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CBCA1809B64; Fri, 11 Apr 2025 13:29:31 +0000 (UTC) From: Benjamin Coddington To: =?utf-8?q?Holger_Hoffst=C3=A4tte?= Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Async client v4 mount results in unexpected number of extents on the server Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:29:29 -0400 Message-ID: <3696A877-3C0E-4F70-9C7E-3FD8B9AD185F@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <848f71b0-7e27-fce1-5e43-2d3c8d4522b4@applied-asynchrony.com> References: <848f71b0-7e27-fce1-5e43-2d3c8d4522b4@applied-asynchrony.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 On 10 Apr 2025, at 8:55, Holger Hoffstätte wrote: > ... > Does this behaviour seem familiar to anybody? > > I realize this is "not a bug" (all data is safe and sound etc.) but > somehow it seems that various layers are not working together as one > might expect. It's possible that my expectation is wrong. :) My first impression is that the writes are being processed out-of-order on the server, so XFS is using a range of allocation sizes while growing the file extents. Ben