Well, we got it working. However, the issue we're now worried about is users creating files and subdirectories. Do we need to worry, and if so, is there some way to reserve inodes < 32k table, other than creating tens of thousands of dummy files now? We don't want, a year or two down the road, for this system to be running, and suddenly everything's broken, because all lower inodes have been used.
On 3/2/2015 11:56 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote:> Well, we got it working. However, the issue we're now worried about is > users creating files and subdirectories. Do we need to worry, and if so, > is there some way to reserve inodes < 32k table, other than creating tens > of thousands of dummy files now? > > We don't want, a year or two down the road, for this system to be running, > and suddenly everything's broken, because all lower inodes have been used.inodes of individual files on the file system behind NFS don't matter. the only issue is, NFS defaults to using the folder's inode as the fsid. my solution to this is to just generate an arbitrary unique integer fsid on each share in /etc/exports on the server... just add ,fsid=# in the (options) field, where # is 1,2,3,4... -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast
John R Pierce wrote:> On 3/2/2015 11:56 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >> Well, we got it working. However, the issue we're now worried about is >> users creating files and subdirectories. Do we need to worry, and if so, >> is there some way to reserve inodes < 32k table, other than creating >> tens of thousands of dummy files now? >> >> We don't want, a year or two down the road, for this system to be >> running, and suddenly everything's broken, because all lower inodeshave been>> used. > > inodes of individual files on the file system behind NFS don't matter. > the only issue is, NFS defaults to using the folder's inode as the fsid. > > my solution to this is to just generate an arbitrary unique integer fsid > on each share in /etc/exports on the server... just add ,fsid=# in the > (options) field, where # is 1,2,3,4... >When I first created it, I tried that, and it complained. I have another system, a new one, which we'll be using for backups; I can try it on that (the original one's *really* not somewhere to play, since my manager's manager has a team all over it, working up to a very high profile demo a week from now....) Thanks. I'll look at this. mark