+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #139355 +++ From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) Description of problem: In the section detailing mount options for NFS filesystems, it says that the default value for rsize and wsize options is 4k. [quote] rsize=8192,wsize=8192 This will make your nfs connection faster than with the default buffer size of 4096. (NFSv2 does not work with larger values of rsize and wsize.) [/quote] This does not tie up with what the kernel source appears to be doing, which is to use the server specified default values. The performance turning pages at http://nfs.sourceforge.net/nfs-howto/performance.html also say that the default is typically server specified. [quote] If no rsize and wsize options are specified, the default varies by which version of NFS we are using. The most common default is 4K (4096 bytes), although for TCP-based mounts in 2.2 kernels, and for all mounts beginning with 2.4 kernels, the server specifies the default block size. [/quote] Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): mount-2.11y-31.1 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. man 'mount' 2. Search for 'rsize'/'wsize' 3. Expected Results: Documentation for default value of rsize/wsize options corresponds to actual practice in kernel source. Additional info: The man page should probably also warn about potential problems with an oversized rsize/wsize as the the above doc on nfs.sourceforge.net [quote] If the rsize/wsize is too large the symptoms are very odd and not 100% obvious. A typical symptom is incomplete file lists when doing ls, and no error messages, or reading files failing mysteriously with no error messages. [/quote] -- Additional comment from buchholz on 2005-01-11 12:43 EST -- Also, the mount(8) and nfs(5) man pages have conflicting statements about the default rsize,wsize values. Mount(8) says 4K; nfs(5) says 1K.
Fixed in util-linux-2.12a-16.EL4.13
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-2006-0061.html