search for: readdirplus

...readlink 0 0% 95673837 23% 3961938 0% 89586364 21% 110097351 26% 2930961 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 20009850 4% 6065319 1% 3757720 0% 1557 0% 0 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 6378134 1% 281 0% 2602358 0% 555097 0% 53126619 12% 15615402 3% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 113256 0% 26152 0% 0 0% 4026151 0% and this is the same on one of the new ones: amateo_adm at myotis31:~$ nfsstat Server rpc stats: calls badcalls...

I found this from ocfs1.4 document: g) NFS OCFS2 volumes can be exported as NFS volumes. This support is limited to NFS version 3, which translates to Linux kernel version 2.4 or later. Users must mount the NFS volumes on the clients using the nordirplus mount option. This disables the READDIRPLUS RPC call to workaround a bug in NFSD, detailed in the following link: http://oss.oracle.com/pipermail/ocfs2-announce/2008-June/000025.html Users running NFS version 2 can export the volume after having disabled subtree checking (mount option no_subtree_check). Be warned, disabling the check has...

Hi folks, I just saw one of my FreeBSD servers (7.0-stable of June 2008) crash while trying to access the .zfs snapshot directory via a nfs client machine. The server got a page fault caused by the nfsd process. It wasn't even able to dump the kernel image anymore. Resetting the machine it first appeared to come back fine, but shortly before the login prompt the nfsd let it crash hard again

...entioned observing file system lockups when accessing OCFS2 exported volumes with FreeBSD NFS clients. The lockups were not observed by him with Linux NFS clients. http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=977 Analysis showed that the lockup was being caused by a deadlock triggered during the READDIRPLUS RPC call available in NFS3. The bugzilla has the kernel stack of the deadlocked process. Disabling READDIRPLUS in the NFS client stopped the deadlocks. The user was then able to successfully run his regression on a mixture of Linux 2.6, FreeBSD6 and FreeBSD7 NFS clients. Now, even though the user...

...entioned observing file system lockups when accessing OCFS2 exported volumes with FreeBSD NFS clients. The lockups were not observed by him with Linux NFS clients. http://oss.oracle.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=977 Analysis showed that the lockup was being caused by a deadlock triggered during the READDIRPLUS RPC call available in NFS3. The bugzilla has the kernel stack of the deadlocked process. Disabling READDIRPLUS in the NFS client stopped the deadlocks. The user was then able to successfully run his regression on a mixture of Linux 2.6, FreeBSD6 and FreeBSD7 NFS clients. Now, even though the user...

...and presents them as 6 different NFS shares. It is an active-active-active cluster with each node presenting a couple of shares. It works pretty well. I am doubting my decision to use NFS and am wondering if CIFS would be a better route. Here are the NFS stats: getattr lookup access read write readdirplus 20% 16% 7% 44% 9% 1% Each NFS node pushes about 65 MB/s so they are pretty busy. It is a backup/recovery application so I would describe the I/O as lots of small reads/writes. Any thoughts? Thanks, Terry

...bug" [deprecated] -f Compatibility option that has no effect [deprecated] -h, --help Prints help information --killpriv-v2 Enable KILLPRIV V2 support --no-killpriv-v2 Disable KILLPRIV V2 support [default] --no-readdirplus Disable support for READDIRPLUS operations --posix-acl Enable support for posix ACLs (implies --xattr) --print-capabilities Print vhost-user.json backend program capabilities and exit --security-label Enable security label s...

...ers wrote: > > I should have flagged this as a bug on the first email. > > > > I've run into an interesting issue using VAST data, their NFS > > implementation > > makes use of the full 64 bit unsigned range allowed by NFS cookie for > > READDIR > > and READDIRPLUS. > > > > The issue is that this 64 unsigned value is used for the directory's > > file > > position (d_off), which is a 64 bit signed value. This can cause > > readdir and > > telldir to return negative values. > > Known issue that we had to deal with 2...

Thanks for a great file system! I have a two-node cluster working as a HA NFS server. This system has worked fine for almost a year, but recently I found that an ocfs2 file system had been corrupted and needed to be repaired with fsck.ocfs2. Even though I don't think that any data was lost I found that 4 of my 14 ocfs2 partitions had some errors which were corrected by fsck.ocfs2. I then

...tattr setattr lookup access readlink 0 0% 2174692 78% 1922 0% 211235 7% 625 0% 87 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 153630 5% 36875 1% 709 0% 26 0% 0 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 6729 0% 144 0% 350 0% 0 0% 1879 0% 165178 5% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 6002 0% 8 0% 0 0% 16872 0% thank you for your help in advance! Klaus ____________________________________________________ Aufnehmen, abschicken, nah sein - So einfach ist WE...

...setattr lookup access readlink 1 0% 744955962 21% 34845109 1% 397981329 11% 818838045 24% 0 0% read write create mkdir symlink mknod 649838729 19% 502171416 14% 29188492 0% 301741 0% 0 0% 0 0% remove rmdir rename link readdir readdirplus 54138192 1% 19903 0% 30702957 0% 27796623 0% 1294453 0% 84457031 2% fsstat fsinfo pathconf commit 48529 0% 31463 0% 0 0% 11339977 0% Output of iostat: Linux 2.4.27-3-686-smp (data.clm.net4all.ch) 21. 07. 06 cpu-moy: %user %nice %sys %iowait %idle...

...hould have flagged this as a bug on the first email. >> > >> > I've run into an interesting issue using VAST data, their NFS >> > implementation >> > makes use of the full 64 bit unsigned range allowed by NFS cookie for >> > READDIR >> > and READDIRPLUS. >> > >> > The issue is that this 64 unsigned value is used for the directory's >> > file >> > position (d_off), which is a 64 bit signed value. This can cause >> > readdir and >> > telldir to return negative values. >> >> Known...

On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 08:46:26PM +0100, Conor Armstrong wrote: > I'm trying to get to the?bottom of where the normal directory functions > differ in results for block storage compared to NFS.? > I created a short c script to look at the offsets generated for the > directory when block storage backed in comparison to NFS backed.? > block storage backed are always