Todd Denniston wrote:
>
> question,
> Is the file system mounted with the 'soft' option?
> i.e. on the systems that are causing problems try
> if mount | grep -i soft >>/dev/null 2>&1
> then
> echo "we have soft mounts"
> else
> echo "good, only normal mounts"
> fi
>
> We had a problem that caused me headaches for 6 months to track down... One of
> the other admins had chosen to mount all the file systems with the soft option
> and propagated this to all machines he could, that is to any I did not
> control, and then people using his config started asking me why they were
> getting IO errors transferring files to/from the file server I maintained. if
> the file was bigger than would fit in the normal [wr]size, which defaults to
> 1024 bytes {or 4096 dependent on which kernel version I believe} the
> probability of an IO error during normal operations went from 0 towards
> certainty by the time the file was 650 MBytes, generally would happen by
> ~100MBytes.
>
> My server was a sun ultra 2 running solaris 2.6, the clients were Linux
> running 2.[02].X and a mix of autofs-3 and autofs-4 (which ever was installed
> with the distros, RH6-9 & Slack7-9.1).
<SNIP>
typo
they were actually 2.[24].X systems with maybe one 2.0.?? system hidden
amongst the bunch.
--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
