Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > alt.os.linux.mint > #43968
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.os.linux.mint, comp.os.linux.networking, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc |
| Subject | Re: (resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour |
| Date | 2025-01-27 23:24 +0000 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vn94jm$19o0q$9@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <vn0gn0$2ajlc$1@dont-email.me> <wwvldv0rt9i.fsf@LkoBDZeT.terraraq.uk> <vn89fh$10eh8$1@dont-email.me> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 15:41:37 +0000, Mike Scott wrote: > In spite of my assertion (which I should have checked and didn't), the > mount options differed. The working machines all specified rsize=8192. > My box was using a much larger figure, of 131072 (ie 32 * 4096). > > It seems anything over 8192 causes this issue - that filenames get > truncated. I don’t understand why increasing rsize on its own would have any effect: according to the docs, that only controls the maximum size of packets that this end can receive; the maximum size the other end can send is limited by that end’s wsize value. So increasing rsize on its own should have no effect. Looking up NFS mount options online, this page <https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_enterprise_linux/4/html/reference_guide/s2-nfs-client-config-options#s2-nfs-client-config-options> does say “be careful when changing these values; some older Linux kernels and network cards do not work well with larger block sizes”. > Whether that's a linux client issue or a freebsd server issue, or the > result of interworking, I've no idea. Nor can I imagine why it should > happen without errors being flagged up somewhere (I checked the logs at > both ends) -- which is nasty, because I had a system that met the specs > and mostly worked but very occasionally (< about 1 in 100k times, I > reckon) failed silently. Ouch. That really baffles me, that you don’t see any errors indicating there was a problem.
Back to alt.os.linux.mint | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-24 16:56 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-24 17:00 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Edmund <nomail@hotmail.com> - 2025-01-24 18:01 +0100
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-24 17:30 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2025-01-24 17:55 +0000
(resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-27 15:41 +0000
Re: (resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-27 23:24 +0000
Re: (resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-28 08:06 +0000
Re: (resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-28 12:34 +0100
Re: (resolved) Re: very odd nfs behaviour pinnerite <pinnerite@gmail.com> - 2025-01-28 22:58 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour azigni <azigni@yahoo.com> - 2025-01-24 19:38 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-24 22:56 +0100
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-01-24 17:34 -0500
Re: very odd nfs behaviour "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-01-25 01:45 +0100
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Mike Scott <usenet.16@scottsonline.org.uk.invalid> - 2025-01-25 17:02 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> - 2025-01-24 23:59 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour "Arti F. Idiot" <addr@is.invalid> - 2025-01-24 17:13 -0700
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-26 00:01 +0000
Re: very odd nfs behaviour Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2025-01-25 20:08 -0600
csiph-web