On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 02:53:49PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:06:20PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
...
What concerns me is that even if the attempted unmount gets EBUSY, the
user-level process descending the directory hierarchy is getting ENOENT
trying to
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 03:41:29PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
...
* At 1229033597.287187 it issues an fstatfs() against FD 4; the
unsuccessful return is at 1229033597.287195, claiming ENOENT.
Say WHAT??!?
...
But is this error transient or permanent ? I.e., would restart of rm
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 07:06:20PM +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote:
...
What concerns me is that even if the attempted unmount gets EBUSY, the
user-level process descending the directory hierarchy is getting ENOENT
trying to issue fstatfs() against an open file descriptor.
I'm having
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:20:05PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:01:10AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:30:26AM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
...
The different behaviour for -CURRENT could be the newer RPC layer that
was recently introduced, but that doesn't explain the basic problem.
OK.
All I can think of is to ask the obvious question. Are you using
interruptible or
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 08:50:22AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 11:30:26AM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote:
...
The different behaviour for -CURRENT could be the newer RPC layer that
was recently introduced, but that doesn't explain the basic problem.
OK.
All I can
On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a sufficiently large hierarchy
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a sufficiently large hierarchy (e.g., via tar zcpf or rm
-fr) will fail to visit
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:01:10AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a
Kostik Belousov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 11:01:10AM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 02:20:05PM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote:
Kostik Belousov wrote:
...
Did you saw me previous answer ? Supposed patch for your problem was
committed to head as r185557, and MFCed to 7 in r185796, and to
7.1 in r185801.
Please test with latest sources.
did you
--hYooF8G/hrfVAmum
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:20:32PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
...
i'll try to check it here soon, but in the meantime, could you try the same
but mounting directly, not via amd, to remove one item from the equation?
(I don't know how much amd is involved here, but if you are running on a
--vmttodhTwj0NAgWp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 02:20:32PM +0200, Danny Braniss wrote:
...
i'll try to check it here soon, but in the meantime, could you try the sa=
me
but
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 04:15:38PM -0800, David Wolfskill wrote:
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a sufficiently large hierarchy (e.g., via tar zcpf or rm
-fr) will fail to visit
I seem to have a fairly- (though not deterministly so) reproducible
mode of failure with an NFS-mounted directory hierarchy: An attempt to
traverse a sufficiently large hierarchy (e.g., via tar zcpf or rm
-fr) will fail to visit some subdirectories, typically apparently
acting as if the
16 matches
Mail list logo
