Bug 189238
Summary: | Wrong fragment size when using statfs on NFS | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 | Reporter: | Bastien Nocera <bnocera> | ||||||
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Steve Dickson <steved> | ||||||
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Brian Brock <bbrock> | ||||||
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
Priority: | medium | ||||||||
Version: | 4.0 | CC: | clasohm, jbaron, k.georgiou, steved | ||||||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||
Target Release: | --- | ||||||||
Hardware: | All | ||||||||
OS: | Linux | ||||||||
Whiteboard: | |||||||||
Fixed In Version: | RHBA-2007-0304 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | ||||||
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||
Last Closed: | 2007-05-08 01:08:04 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||
Embargoed: | |||||||||
Bug Depends On: | |||||||||
Bug Blocks: | 176344 | ||||||||
Attachments: |
|
Description
Bastien Nocera
2006-04-18 15:17:56 UTC
*** Bug 182596 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Created attachment 132610 [details]
reproducer program
With the attached program, no occurance of bug found on 2.6.17-1.2356.fc6 and
2.6.15-1.2054_FC5. statvfs reports correct f_frsize with mount options
rw,nfsvers=3,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,hard,nointr
Would be good to know the kernel version or the rhel version on which the bug
was observed.
The RHEL version is the one mentioned in the "Version" field. The test kernel was the latest stable RHEL4 kernel: 2.6.9-34.EL Created attachment 132872 [details]
fix 1
I was able to successfully reproduce the bug on 2.6.9-42.EL and it does go away
with the attached fix. Upstream kernel and even devel branch of rhel kernel
takes frsize as blocksize in superblock. I'm trying to find out exactly which
patch changes this particular code. However, attached fix should serve the
purpose.
My understanding is the NFS client file system should be able to use what ever it wants for f_frsize. As long as tbytes = f_frsize * f_blocks fbytes = f_frsize * f_bfree abytes = f_frsize * f_bavail That said, it is pointless, for NFS, if not all other file systems, to have f_frsize be different than f_bsize. It just causes confusion. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux maintenance release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Update release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in an Update release. committed in stream U5 build 42.13. A test kernel with this patch is available from http://people.redhat.com/~jbaron/rhel4/ An advisory has been issued which should help the problem described in this bug report. This report is therefore being closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information on the solution and/or where to find the updated files, please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report if the solution does not work for you. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0304.html |