Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 12:43:47 -0500 From: Eric Anderson <anderson@centtech.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi+mx@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock Message-ID: <4489B353.9050808@centtech.com> In-Reply-To: <200606091333.42619.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> References: <20060609065656.31225.qmail@web30313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200606091313.04913.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com> <4489AF86.2080901@centtech.com> <200606091333.42619.mi%2Bmx@aldan.algebra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mikhail Teterin wrote: > п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 13:27, Eric Anderson написав: >> Just curious - what NFS mount options are being used, > > The fs is accessed by the remote client machines (mostly -- Solaris) via > automounters -- with the default parameters. > >> and are you changing any sysctl's (vfs/nfs related)? > > No, should I? > > -mi Shouldn't need to - I just recalled having seen some strange problems long ago when 'tweaking' some vfs sysctls, and wondering if you had possibly done the same. I'm curious to know if just local heavy writes would cause the problem, or if it has to be through NFS. Also, possibly adding the 'sync' option to the fs mount point could change things.. I'm not sure what those things would tell us for sure, but they would be interesting none-the-less. Eric -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric Anderson Sr. Systems Administrator Centaur Technology Anything that works is better than anything that doesn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4489B353.9050808>