Bug 617669
Summary: | nfsstat names some values wrong | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Issue Tracker <tao> | |
Component: | nfs-utils | Assignee: | Steve Dickson <steved> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | yanfu,wang <yanwang> | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | medium | |||
Version: | 5.4 | CC: | bfields, cward, jlayton, tao, tgummels | |
Target Milestone: | rc | |||
Target Release: | --- | |||
Hardware: | All | |||
OS: | Linux | |||
Whiteboard: | ||||
Fixed In Version: | nfs-utils-1.0.9-52.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | ||
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 890146 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2011-07-21 11:35:36 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: |
Description
Issue Tracker
2010-07-23 17:26:54 UTC
Event posted on 07-22-2010 03:47pm EDT by alfw Hi, When I issue the command "nfsstat -s -o rpc" it prints out alfw@pssrv102 > nfsstat -s -o rpc Server rpc stats: calls badcalls badauth badclnt xdrcall 3003528135 5198 5198 0 0 but the kernel source (kernel-2.6.18/linux-2.6.18.x86_64/net/sunrpc/stats.c, lines 92-98) say: seq_printf(seq, "rpc %u %u %u %u %u\n", statp->rpccnt, statp->rpcbadfmt+statp->rpcbadauth+statp->rpcbadclnt, statp->rpcbadfmt, statp->rpcbadauth, statp->rpcbadclnt); which looks like the 3rd, 4th, and 5th field in the nfsstat output are named wrong. Here are some more details about the machine: alfw@pssrv102 > uname -a Linux pssrv102 2.6.18-164.15.1.el5 #1 SMP Mon Mar 1 10:56:08 EST 2010 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux alfw@pssrv102 > cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux Client release 5.4 (Tikanga) alfw@pssrv102 > rpm -qvf /usr/sbin/nfsstat nfs-utils-1.0.9-42.el5 Many thanks, Alf. This event sent from IssueTracker by tgummels [SLAC] issue 1175783 Event posted on 07-22-2010 07:27pm EDT by tgummels Alf, I agree, it doesn't look right. Not sure of the 4th argument to print_numbers yet. nfsstat.c 1.0.9 (in the RHEL5 sources) if (opt_prt & PRNT_RPC) { print_numbers( "Server rpc stats:\n" "calls badcalls badauth badclnt xdrcall\n", svcrpcinfo, 5 ); printf("\n"); } static unsigned int svcrpcinfo[6]; /* 0 total # of RPC calls * 1 total # of bad calls * 2 bad format * 3 authentication failed * 4 unknown client */ This event sent from IssueTracker by tgummels [SLAC] issue 1175783 reproduced on rhel5.4: # rpm -qa|grep nfs-utils nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-7.6.el5.x86_64 nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-7.6.el5.i386 nfs-utils-1.0.9-42.el5.x86_64 nfs-utils-lib-devel-1.0.8-7.6.el5.x86_64 nfs-utils-lib-devel-1.0.8-7.6.el5.i386 # nfsstat -s -o rpc Server rpc stats: calls badcalls badauth badclnt xdrcall 0 0 0 0 0 verified on RHEL5.7-Server-20110608.1: # rpm -qa|grep nfs-utils nfs-utils-1.0.9-53.el5 nfs-utils-lib-1.0.8-7.6.el5 # cat SOURCES/nfs-utils-1.0.9-nfsstat-hdrs.patch --- nfs-utils-1.0.9/utils/nfsstat/nfsstat.c.orig 2011-04-26 11:25:41.329050000 -0400 +++ nfs-utils-1.0.9/utils/nfsstat/nfsstat.c 2011-04-26 13:29:47.340420000 -0400 @@ -343,7 +343,7 @@ main(int argc, char **argv) if (opt_prt & PRNT_RPC) { print_numbers( "Server rpc stats:\n" - "calls badcalls badauth badclnt xdrcall\n", + "calls badcalls badclnt badauth xdrcall\n", svcrpcinfo, 5 ); printf("\n"); # nfsstat -s -o rpc Server rpc stats: calls badcalls badclnt badauth xdrcall 8 0 0 0 0 customer report the 5th field in the nfsstat output is also named wrong, and I think the patch just fix the 3rd, 4th field. So could I ask customer to confirm if it's enough for them? pls help get feedback of comment #5, thanks. @tgummels, See comment #5 please. 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 therefore 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-2011-1048.html |