> David Weinehall wrote:
> > I don't think it's auto-detectable (I doubt that the servers will tell you
> > in the negotiation "hey mister, I'm a buggy server"
>
> Couldn't mount, if mounting rw, mount the FS with padding enabled, write
> a padded file, read it back, and - if necessary - remount without padding ?
> Ugly, I know, but at least the unsuspecting admin wouldn't mount in
> waiting-for-massive-data-loss mode.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it be better to make padding the mount-time option, and
have the more fault-safe (albeit a tad bit slower) behaviour default? This
way, no unpleasant surprises.
> I think we have the same problem with our NFS server (some ancient Solaris),
> and, at least in our case, it strikes infrequently enough that it's hard to
> guess what may be wrong. (So far, I've been suspecting kernel memory
> handling, binutils, Ethernet card & driver, TCP/IP stack, RAM, power
> supply, ...)
I suggest you get the approriate patch from SunSolve and see if that
helps.
/David
_ _
// David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se> /> Northern lights wander \\
// Project MCA Linux hacker // Dance across the winter sky //
\> http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/ </ Full colour fire </
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/