From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 10 20:47:12 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425DE1065676; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:47:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from olli@lurza.secnetix.de) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (lurza.secnetix.de [IPv6:2a01:170:102f::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9BFB8FC18; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:47:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lurza.secnetix.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o1AKkru2085174; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:47:08 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from oliver.fromme@secnetix.de) Received: (from olli@localhost) by lurza.secnetix.de (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id o1AKkrvj085173; Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:53 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olli) Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:46:53 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <201002102046.o1AKkrvj085173@lurza.secnetix.de> From: Oliver Fromme To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, amdmi3@amdmi3.ru In-Reply-To: X-Newsgroups: list.freebsd-hackers User-Agent: tin/1.8.3-20070201 ("Scotasay") (UNIX) (FreeBSD/6.4-PRERELEASE-20080904 (i386)) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.1.2 (lurza.secnetix.de [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:47:08 +0100 (CET) Cc: Subject: Re: NFS write corruption on 8.0-RELEASE X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 20:47:12 -0000 Dmitry Marakasov 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 problem? NFS works fine for me. I'm using -stable, not -release, though. > Client: 8.0-RELEASE i386 > Server: 8.0-RELEASE amd64 > > mount options: > nfs rw,nosuid,noexec,nfsv3,intr,soft,tcp,bg,nolockd I recommend not using the "soft" option. 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 systems may incur unexpected I/O errors, file corrup- tion, and unexpected program core dumps. The soft option is not recommended. FreeBSD's manual page doesn't contain such a warning, but maybe it should. (It contains a warning not to use "soft" with NFSv4, though, for different reasons.) Also note that the "nolockd" option means that processes on different clients won't see each other's locks. That means that you will get corruption if they rely on locking. Best regards Oliver -- Oliver Fromme, secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing b. M. Handelsregister: Registergericht Muenchen, HRA 74606, Geschäftsfuehrung: secnetix Verwaltungsgesellsch. mbH, Handelsregister: Registergericht Mün- chen, HRB 125758, Geschäftsführer: Maik Bachmann, Olaf Erb, Ralf Gebhart FreeBSD-Dienstleistungen, -Produkte und mehr: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd "Perl will consistently give you what you want, unless what you want is consistency." -- Larry Wall