public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Stale Filehandles was: [2.6] nfs_rename: target $file busy, d_count=2
@ 2004-01-22  7:17 Jonathan Boler
  2004-01-22  7:37 ` hanasaki
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Boler @ 2004-01-22  7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Linux Kernel Mailing List

On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 10:40:31AM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > I only had a few nfs clients doing light load, (kde home directories, and
> > such) and was able to reproduce stale nfs file handles just by running "find
> > > /dev/null" on the nfs share.
> >
> > Have you tried the -mm tree recently? 2.6.1-mm4 even has some new nfsd
> > patches in there (maybe you should wait until -mm5 though, there are a few
> 
> Stale filehandles is the main problem right now, and I don't see how
> nfs_raname would be related (just that it was there while I was having
> trouble with the stale file handles...)
> 
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/akpm/patches/2.6/2.6.1/2.6.1-mm4/broken-out/nfsd-01-stale-filehandles-fixes.patch
> 
> This one looks particularly interesting...

I was getting alot of nfsv3 stale file handles with 2.6.1-mm1 so I dropped back to 2.6.1.

mm5 seems to have fixed everything.

Jonathan

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Fwd: Re: [2.6] nfs_rename: target $file busy, d_count=2
@ 2004-01-16  5:06 Mike Fedyk
  2004-01-16 13:03 ` Patrick Mau
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Mike Fedyk @ 2004-01-16  5:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: linux-kernel; +Cc: netdev

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:54:57PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 04:03:46PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > Both client and server are running the same 2.6.1-bk2 kernel with TCP-NFS.
> > SMP, Highmem, & preempt.
> 
> I have four clients that are all having this problem also, three 2.6, and
> one 2.4 client.
> 
> Using TCP-NFS they all have stale nfs handles even after a reboot (only
> rebooted one to try with 2.4.23), but changed one to UDP-NFS, and it didn't
> have the stale handles.
> 
> Will do more testing with UDP-NFS.

No, TCP and UDP NFS both get stale file handles. :(

Can anyone reproduce?


----- End forwarded message -----

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2004-01-22  7:38 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-01-22  7:17 Stale Filehandles was: [2.6] nfs_rename: target $file busy, d_count=2 Jonathan Boler
2004-01-22  7:37 ` hanasaki
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-01-16  5:06 Fwd: " Mike Fedyk
2004-01-16 13:03 ` Patrick Mau
2004-01-16 18:40   ` Mike Fedyk
2004-01-16 18:55     ` Stale Filehandles was: " Mike Fedyk
2004-01-16 20:16       ` Mike Fedyk

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox