Linux Archive

Linux Archive (http://www.linux-archive.org/)
-   CentOS (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/)
-   -   Mount options for NFS (http://www.linux-archive.org/centos/710822-mount-options-nfs.html)

10-09-2012 12:16 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
We're experiencing problems with some legacy software when it comes to NFS
access. Even though files are visible in a terminal and can be accessed with
standard shell tools and vi, this software typically complains that the files
are empty or not syntactically correct.

The NFS filesystems in question are 8TB+ XFS filesystems mounted with
"delaylog,inode64,logbsize=32k,logdev=/dev/sda2,nobarrier,quota" options,
and I suspect that inode64 may have to do with the observed behaviour. The
server is running CentOS 6.3 + all patches.

The clients exhibiting the problem are running CentOS 5.4 and CentOS 5.8
x84_64. Interesting enough, the application (which is available in 32-bit
only) appears to work fine on RHEL3 32-bit; we have no CentOS5 32-bit
systems to test.

I was wondering if anyone has seen such behaviour and whether it can be
corrected using nfs mount options. The only other solution I have at the
moment is reformatting to ext4, i.e. ugly.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Mogens Kjaer 10-09-2012 01:10 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
On 10/09/2012 02:16 PM, lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> The clients exhibiting the problem are running CentOS 5.4 and CentOS 5.8
> x84_64.

Which NFS protocol version?

Have you tried NFS mount with vers=3 ?

Mogens

--
Mogens Kjaer, mk@lemo.dk
http://www.lemo.dk
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

10-09-2012 01:19 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
Mogens Kjaer writes:
> On 10/09/2012 02:16 PM, lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> > The clients exhibiting the problem are running CentOS 5.4 and CentOS 5.8
> > x84_64.
>
> Which NFS protocol version?
>
> Have you tried NFS mount with vers=3 ?

From /proc:

nfs rw,vers=3,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,hard,intr,pr oto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,addr=<SERVER> 0 0

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

James Pearson 10-09-2012 01:48 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> We're experiencing problems with some legacy software when it comes to NFS
> access. Even though files are visible in a terminal and can be accessed with
> standard shell tools and vi, this software typically complains that the files
> are empty or not syntactically correct.
>
> The NFS filesystems in question are 8TB+ XFS filesystems mounted with
> "delaylog,inode64,logbsize=32k,logdev=/dev/sda2,nobarrier,quota" options,
> and I suspect that inode64 may have to do with the observed behaviour. The
> server is running CentOS 6.3 + all patches.
>
> The clients exhibiting the problem are running CentOS 5.4 and CentOS 5.8
> x84_64. Interesting enough, the application (which is available in 32-bit
> only) appears to work fine on RHEL3 32-bit; we have no CentOS5 32-bit
> systems to test.
>
> I was wondering if anyone has seen such behaviour and whether it can be
> corrected using nfs mount options. The only other solution I have at the
> moment is reformatting to ext4, i.e. ugly.

I would suspect the inode64 option is the problem

We had similar issues running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit clients accessing
'large' NFS servers (non-Linux NFS servers) - the 'fix' was to make sure
the file systems were exported/mounted with 32 bit inode compatibility

I believe in our case the 32 bit apps in question were not compiled with
large file support (they are/were 3rd party apps). I think if they were
compiled with large file support, then they would work OK.

James Pearson

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

10-09-2012 02:26 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
> I would suspect the inode64 option is the problem
>
> We had similar issues running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit clients accessing
> 'large' NFS servers (non-Linux NFS servers) - the 'fix' was to make sure
> the file systems were exported/mounted with 32 bit inode compatibility

http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Why_doesn.27t_NFS-exporting_subdirectories_of_inode64-mounted_filesystem_work.3F

Link colour in my browser indicates I've looked at this before. D'oh.

The fsid option seems to work, but I need more testing.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

10-10-2012 12:42 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
lhecking@users.sourceforge.net writes:
>
> > I would suspect the inode64 option is the problem
> >
> > We had similar issues running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit clients accessing
> > 'large' NFS servers (non-Linux NFS servers) - the 'fix' was to make sure
> > the file systems were exported/mounted with 32 bit inode compatibility
>
> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Why_doesn.27t_NFS-exporting_subdirectories_of_inode64-mounted_filesystem_work.3F
>
> Link colour in my browser indicates I've looked at this before. D'oh.
>
> The fsid option seems to work, but I need more testing.

It did not work. The test environemnt was set up wrong.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

James Pearson 10-10-2012 01:45 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
> lhecking@users.sourceforge.net writes:
>
>>>I would suspect the inode64 option is the problem
>>>
>>>We had similar issues running 32 bit apps on a 64 bit clients accessing
>>>'large' NFS servers (non-Linux NFS servers) - the 'fix' was to make sure
>>>the file systems were exported/mounted with 32 bit inode compatibility
>>
>>
>> http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_Why_doesn.27t_NFS-exporting_subdirectories_of_inode64-mounted_filesystem_work.3F
>>
>> Link colour in my browser indicates I've looked at this before. D'oh.
>>
>> The fsid option seems to work, but I need more testing.
>
>
> It did not work. The test environemnt was set up wrong.

Is it possible to re-build the 32 bit application with large file support?

James Pearson
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

10-10-2012 01:50 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
> > It did not work. The test environemnt was set up wrong.
>
> Is it possible to re-build the 32 bit application with large file support?

Nope.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

James Pearson 10-10-2012 03:31 PM

Mount options for NFS
 
lhecking@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
>>> It did not work. The test environemnt was set up wrong.
>>
>>Is it possible to re-build the 32 bit application with large file support?
>
>
> Nope.

I guess you might be out of luck?

I'm not sure you can safely mount an XFS file system without inode64
that was previously mounted with inode64 - but I've never used inode64,
so don't take my word on it ...

James Pearson
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.