> > I am constantly accessing NFS with this machine. Read and write. It was > > How much data at one go (max)? I just dumped the backup I made from jaz to the nfs. I found out that some things didn't get backed up. I did multiple backups and one file was larger than the last (for the same filesystem). Once I copyied to nfs (which did *NOT* crash it), I ran md5sum on both nfs copy and jaz copy. both were exact same. then I copyied from nfs to nfs. The size was about 350mb. (Quite surprised about the jaz drive performance =) > > only when I backed it up with tar. In the event it doesn't lock, tar > > crashes w/o error/warning (over NFS). > > So, it locks not always? In the above case, still was booted with init=/bin/sh and did not lockup. I did several tar backups. Sometimes I got a segmentation fault and killed tar, other times I got my shell killed. I have not tried enabling TCP yet. I'm going to try a 2.4 kernel soon. (I want to stay with 2.6 since I have a DVD+RW drive) > > > byte or 1K or 1M? Does it lock immediately as you start the backup or > > > > It locks up usually at one point, but not always. > > Since you could backup to Jazz, looks like your filesystem is ok, NFS also > works in principle... As stated above, one of the filesystems did not completely backup. > > > after some time (you could start some process in the background > > > periodically printing some info on the terminal, like vmstat, cat > > > /proc/interrupts, free, tcpdump on both ends to a file...) Can you try NFS > > > > I can do this I think. It's fun when running with init being bash. It will > > take some time to do since I can't scroll backwards. > > You could also attach a serial console and direct the output there (then > you also can scroll). I have not retrieved this yet. > > > 10/100mbps? > > > > 100 FD always. > > Why I am interested in your experiences is that I also have a problem > transferring large (several M) files over NFS when the server is 2.6 and > both ends have 100 FD. (You can see my posts this week about 2.6 NFS.) And > in my case it TCP fixed it. But I never had hard-locks, just cp hanged in > D, and tcpdump showed timed out reassembly on the receiving side. But I > was reading from the server. I have done several gig of transfers to the 2.4 server. I was burning a bunch of data from nfs to dvd+r. In the tests I did above, I ran dmesg several times, Not once did I see an oops. I'm not sure, I may have a hardware problem (It's going to be replaced soon anyway) -- Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo _at_ vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
References:
- Re: Strange lockup with 2.6.0Wakko Warner
- Re: Strange lockup with 2.6.0Guennadi Liakhovetski
- Prev by Date: [2/4] move "struct movsl_mask movsl_mask" to usercopy.c
- Next by Date: [4/4] proof of concept: make arch/i386/kernel/cpu/mtrr/Makefile CPU specific
- Previous by thread: Re: Strange lockup with 2.6.0
- Next by thread: Re: Strange lockup with 2.6.0
- Indexes:[Main][Thread]