mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jamie Heilman <jamie@audible.transient.net>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@redhat.com>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: RPC: fragment too large with transition to 3.4
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:27:03 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120613092703.GA4701@cucamonga.audible.transient.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120613060627.GA11421@cucamonga.audible.transient.net>

Jamie Heilman wrote:
> It's looking like my issues with "RPC: fragment too large" may be
> something else entirely at this point, I've noticed other weird
> network behavior that I'm gonna have to try to isolate before I keep
> blaming nfs changes.  Though for some reason my
> /proc/fs/nfsd/max_block_size ends up only 128KiB w/3.4 where it was
> 512KiB w/3.3.

OK, I get it now.  32-bit PAE system w/4G of RAM (minus a chunk for
the IGP video etc.) for my NFS server, and the max_block_size
calculation changed significantly in commit
508f92275624fc755104b17945bdc822936f1918 to account for rpc buffers
only being in low memory.  That means whereas in 3.3 the math came out
to having a target size of roughly 843241 my new target size in 3.4 is
only 219959-ish, so choosing 128KiB is understandable.  The problem
was that all my clients had negotiated their nfs mounts against the
v3.3 value of 512KiB, and when I rebooted into 3.4... they hit the
wall attempting larger transfers and become uselessly stuck at that
point.  If I remount everything before doing any large transfers, then
it negotiates a lower wsize and things work fine.  So everything is
working as planned I suppose... the transition between 3.3 and 3.4 is
just a bit rough.

-- 
Jamie Heilman                     http://audible.transient.net/~jamie/

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-13  9:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-10  9:03 NFSv4 regression, kernel BUG at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:1044! Jamie Heilman
2012-06-11  3:41 ` Jamie Heilman
2012-06-11 16:14 ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-06-12 10:13   ` Jamie Heilman
2012-06-12 11:18     ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-06-12 12:36       ` J. Bruce Fields
2012-06-13  6:06         ` Jamie Heilman
2012-06-13  9:27           ` Jamie Heilman [this message]
2012-06-13 15:56             ` RPC: fragment too large with transition to 3.4 J. Bruce Fields
2012-06-19  6:15         ` NFSv4 regression, kernel BUG at fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c:1044! Benny Halevy

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120613092703.GA4701@cucamonga.audible.transient.net \
    --to=jamie@audible.transient.net \
    --cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
    --cc=bfields@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®