On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:08:55PM -0800, alan bryan wrote:
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote:
From: Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: NFS write corruption on 8.0-RELEASE
To: Dmitry Marakasov amd...@amdmi3.ru
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
* Rick Macklem (rmack...@uoguelph.ca) wrote:
Is it the hostname of the server or the client?
My guess is that hades.panopticon (or something like that:-) is the
Yes, that is the client.
As John said, it would be nice to try and narrow it down to client or
server side, too.
I'm planning
* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote:
This is an excerpt from Solaris' mount_nfs(1M) manpage:
File systems that are mounted read-write or that con-
tain executable files should always be mounted with
the hard option. Applications using soft mounted file
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010, John Baldwin wrote:
[good stuff snipped]
Case1: single currupted block 3779CF88-3779 (12408 bytes).
Data in block is shifted 68 bytes up, loosing first 68 bytes are
filling last 68 bytes with garbage. Interestingly, among that garbage
is my hostname.
Is it the
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote:
This is an excerpt from Solaris' mount_nfs(1M) manpage:
File systems that are mounted read-write or that con-
tain executable files should always be mounted with
the hard option.
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote:
This is an excerpt from Solaris' mount_nfs(1M) manpage:
File systems that are mounted read-write or that con-
tain executable files should always be mounted with
the hard option.
* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote:
I'm sorry for the confusion ... I do not think that it's
the cause for your data corruption, in this particular
case. I just mentioned the potential problems with soft
mounts because it could cause additional problems for you.
(And it's
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
Interesting, I'll try disabling it. However now I really wonder why
is such dangerous option available (given it's the cause) at all,
especially without a notice. Silent data corruption is possibly the
worst thing to happen ever.
I doubt that
Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
Oh, then I really misunderstood. If the curruption implied is
like when you copy a file via NFS and the net goes down, and in
case of soft mount you have half of a file (read: corruption), while
with hard mount the copy process will finish when the net is back up,
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
* Oliver Fromme (o...@lurza.secnetix.de) wrote:
I'm sorry for the confusion ... I do not think that it's
the cause for your data corruption, in this particular
case. I just mentioned the potential problems with soft
mounts because it could
--- On Fri, 2/12/10, Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca wrote:
From: Rick Macklem rmack...@uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: NFS write corruption on 8.0-RELEASE
To: Dmitry Marakasov amd...@amdmi3.ru
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-sta...@freebsd.org, John Baldwin
j...@freebsd.org
Date
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:43:38 pm Dmitry Marakasov wrote:
Hi!
I think I've reported that before, the I thought it's been fixed,
however I still get data corruptions when writing on NFS volumes.
Now I wonder - is nobody really using NFS, or do I have that much
of uncommon setup, or
Hi!
I think I've reported that before, the I thought it's been fixed,
however I still get data corruptions when writing on NFS volumes.
Now I wonder - is nobody really using NFS, or do I have that much
of uncommon setup, or this is some kind of local problem?
Client: 8.0-RELEASE i386
Server:
Dmitry Marakasov amd...@amdmi3.ru wrote:
I think I've reported that before, the I thought it's been fixed,
however I still get data corruptions when writing on NFS volumes.
Now I wonder - is nobody really using NFS, or do I have that much
of uncommon setup, or this is some kind of local
14 matches
Mail list logo
