The file is being copied from yeti to picard. Last packet seen is picard
telling yeti "OK" after the commit.
If soft timeouts were occurring shouldn't we be seeing packets from yeti
again with no response from picard?
________________________________________
Michael D. Black Principal Engineer
mblack@csihq.com 321-676-2923,x203
http://www.csihq.com Computer Science Innovations
http://www.csihq.com/~mike My home page
FAX 321-676-2355
----- Original Message -----
From: "Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
To: "Mike Black" <mblack@csihq.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: 2.4.8 NFS Problems
>>>>> " " == Mike Black <mblack@csihq.com> writes:
> But my timeouts were only 10 seconds -- well below the timeo
> and retrans timeout periods. And my network traffic shows that
According to the 'nfs' manpage, the default timeo on the mount in
util-linux is usually 0.7 seconds. retrans is 3.
0.7 + 1.4 + 2.8 = 4.9 seconds < 10...
> this is the client causing the problem NOT the server. It's
> the read() that pauses for 10 seconds and then the NFS write
> immediately returns EIO. So...I don't think soft mounts has
> anything to do with it.
I think it does.
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/