Re: nfs_statfs: statfs error = 116

[Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>]

>>>>> " " == Martin Knoblauch <Martin.Knoblauch@mscsoftware.com> writes:

     > I accidentally run iozone on two clients with the output file
     > being the same and residing on the NFS Server. Pure luser
     > error, but it produced ESTALE pretty much reproducibly.

Sure. This is a prime example of where ESTALE *is* appropriate. One
NFS client is deleting a file on the server while the other is still
using it.

In the NFSv2/v3 protocols, the assumption is that filehandles are
valid for the entire lifetime of the file on the server. IOW only
"unlink()" can cause a valid filehandle to become stale. This is
mainly because there is no notion of open()/close(), so the server
would never be capable of determining when your client has stopped
using the filehandle.

If your 2 processes were running on the same machine, you would have
seen the kernel temporarily rename your file to .nfsXXXXXX in order to
work around the above problem. Delete that file, and you will generate
ESTALE reproducibly too....

Cheers,
  Trond