On 08/05/12 3:18 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > John R Pierce <pierce at hogranch.com> wrote: > >> On 08/05/12 3:06 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: >>> Your claim is aproximately correct for NFSv2 (1988) but wrong for other NFS >>> versions. >> The server was using NFS V3/V4 in CentOS 6.2 earlier this year, and >> various clients, including Solaris 10. The problems were reported from >> our overseas manufacturing operations so I only got them 3rd hand, and >> don't know all the specifics. In my lab I had only shared the root of >> the file system as thats the model I use, but apparently operations >> likes to have lots of different shares, MS Windows style. This was a >> 'stop production' kind of error, so the most expedient fix was to >> manually specify the export ID. > If you suffer from bugs in Linux filesystem implementations, you should make a > bug report against the related code. Only a bug report ans a willing maintainer > can help you. > > The problem you describe does not exist on Solaris nor on other systems with > bug-free NFS and I know why I try to avoid Linux when NFS is important. It is a > pity that after many years, there are still NFS problems in Linux. > > Again: > > - NFSv2 (from 1988) allows 32 Bytes for a NFS file handle > > - NFSv3 (from 1990) allows 64 Bytes for a NFS file handle > > - NFSv4 (from 2004) has no hard limit here > > With the 32 byte file handle, there are still 12 bytes (including a 2 byte > length indicator) for the file id in the file handle. > > If your filesystem could use 44 and more bytes in the case you describe, there > is no problem - except when the code is not OK. > > It is of course nice to still support SunOS-4.0 clients, but in case that the > client supports NFSv3 or newer, why not use longer file id's? > we had both solaris 10 aka sunos 5.10 clients and EL5/6 clients. the error is "Stale NFS file handle" anyways, this refers to the fsid problem, http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Why_doesn.27t_NFS-exporting_subdirectories_of_inode64-mounted_filesystem_work.3F I discussed this problem on this list back in march, and got little useful feedback I see related issues here. http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-11/msg00161.html so this problem has been known for awhile. we were unable to make the 'fsid=uuid' option work (or we didn't understand it), but using fsid=## for unique integers for each export works fine, so thats what we went with. are these fsid's the same as your 32 vs 64 bit file handles ? doesn't sound like it to me, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're referring to as a file handle. -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast