Re: [reiserfs-list] Re: Apparent instability of reiserfs on 2.4.1

From: Andi Kleen (
Date: Mon Feb 12 2001 - 04:49:17 EST

Rogerio Brito <> writes:

> On Feb 11 2001, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > The reiserfs nfs problem in standard 2.4 is very simple -- it'll
> > barf as soon as you run out of file handle/inode cache. Any workload
> > that accesses enough files in parallel can trigger it.
> I'm just trying to evaluate if I should use reiserfs here or
> not: is this phenomenon that you describe above happening
> independently of whether I choose the knfsd or userspace nfsd?

This should be all covered extensively in the reiserfs FAQ and list archives,
here a last time:

It only applies to knfsd, but unfsd unfortunately has different problems
with reiserfs. It makes assumptions about the inode space by the underlying
filesystem by assuming that it can encode a dev_t in upper bits. Reiserfs
unlike ext2 periodically cycles through the full 31bit of inode values, and
after some weeks on a busy file system unfsd starts to complain about
conflicts. There is a patch at*
that works around the problem when you specify --no-cross-mounts (but
you cannot export trees of multiple file systems then with a single mount

Please also note that the patch also adds a rather obscure bug, which triggers
very seldom (patch partly exists, but not really tested yet)

Another alternative is to use knfsd with Chris Mason's 2.4 knfsd patches.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 15 2001 - 21:00:18 EST