Linux - NetworkingThis forum is for any issue related to networks or networking.
Routing, network cards, OSI, etc. Anything is fair game.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I have Ubuntu 7.10 computers in my network and 2 computers are set up as NFS servers.
Very often when I copy (cp) large files from NFS client to NFS server the client stalls ... same thing when I from the client copy large files between NFS servers.
What should I check to solve this problem ... BTW I have a couple of Windows XP computers in the network also and Windows do not have any problem to copy much larger files to the NFS servers (they act as Samba servers also)
I had the feeling that Linux was superior to Windows but ... I mean NFS has been around for ages so it should be rock-solid ...
When I read the NFS documentation I got the impression that sync was the recommended option for NFS2/3 due to the risk of possible data corruption ... it says:
'Finally, note that, for NFS version 3 protocol requests, a subsequent commit request from the NFS client at file close time, or at fsync() time, will force the server to write any previously unwritten data/metadata to the disk, and the server will not reply to the client until this has been completed, as long as sync behavior is followed. If async is used, the commit is essentially a no-op, since the server once again lies to the client, telling the client that the data has been sent to stable storage. This again exposes the client and server to data corruption, since cached data may be discarded on the client due to its belief that the server now has the data maintained in stable storage.'
My /etc/exports looks like:
/my_media_lib 192.168.1.44(rw,subtree_check,sync)
On my NFS-client (the one who dies) cat /var/log/messages | grep nfs gives:
Jan 6 04:45:09 pluto kernel: [16403.378139] nfs: server neptun not responding, still trying
And on my NFS server /var/log/messages gives:
Jan 6 06:14:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 06:34:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 06:54:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 07:14:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 07:34:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 07:36:20 neptun syslogd 1.4.1#21ubuntu3: restart.
Jan 6 07:54:03 neptun -- MARK --
Jan 6 08:14:03 neptun -- MARK --
How to interpret these messages ... why doesn't server respond ?
If you need more output please let me know.
I will test your recommendation with async and let you know how it went ...
It WORKS !!! Thanks for solution.
I have tested it with several large files between NFS servers and client. The CPU utilization is high but the client survives.
One question though ... since the only thing I changed is sync -> async in /etc/exports for the NFS servers it must imply that everything else is set-up OK for my NFS servers/clients. How come the default/recommended option sync doesn't work for NFSv3 ... is it a bug ?
Distribution: Distribution: RHEL 5 with Pieces of this and that.
Kernel 2.6.23.1, KDE 3.5.8 and KDE 4.0 beta, Plu
Posts: 5,700
Rep:
I don't really know an answer to that unless googling but have no time for that. async just pretty much starts transferring and does not really confirm it is complete like the sync option. async is much faster to transfer files than sync.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.