On 03/13/2012 04:21 PM, Rahul Katariya wrote: > Hi , > > I am using Cent OS 6 64 bit which supports NFS version 4. A few questions: - What kernel version is Cent OS 6 using? I'm running 3.2.7 (on Archlinux, though) and those tests pass... - Is the server Cent OS 6, too? - Do you still get the warnings if you run with -f instead of -t? - Have you tried increasing your "timeo" value? 7 seems somewhat low... My `mount` output looks like this: davros:/home/bjschuma/ on /nfs type nfs (rw,relatime,vers=3,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,mountaddr=192.168.122.1,mountvers=3,mountport=20048,mountproto=udp,local_lock=none,addr=192.168.122.1) - Bryan > > I ran cthon-nfs-tests on it. > > Although NFS version is 4 supported, I am using NFS 3 for mounting NFS share. > > Following are packages installed. > # rpm -qa |grep nfs > nfs-utils-1.2.2-7.el6.x86_64 > nfs-utils-lib-1.1.5-1.el6.x86_64 > > Mount shows following > # mount > nfs-server:/export/share/connectathon on /nfstestdir1 type nfs > (rw,intr,retrans=5,timeo=7,tcp,nfsvers=3,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,addr=10.10.10.1) > > Following is a nfs locking testcase result: > > [lock]$ ./runtests -t /nfstestdir1 > Starting LOCKING tests: test directory (arg: -t) > > Testing native post-LFS locking > > Creating parent/child synchronization pipes. > ======================================================= > Test #1 - Test regions of an unlocked file. > Parent: 1.1 - F_TEST [ 0, 1] PASSED. > Parent: 1.2 - F_TEST [ 0, ENDING] PASSED. > Parent: 1.3 - F_TEST [ 0,7fffffff] PASSED. > Parent: 1.4 - F_TEST [ 1, 1] PASSED. > Parent: 1.5 - F_TEST [ 1, ENDING] PASSED. > Parent: 1.6 - F_TEST [ 1,7fffffff] PASSED. > Parent: 1.7 - F_TEST [7fffffff, 1] PASSED. > Parent: 1.8 - F_TEST [7fffffff, ENDING] PASSED. > Parent: 1.9 - F_TEST [7fffffff,7fffffff] WARNING! > Parent: **** Expected EOVERFLOW, returned success... > > Test #2 - Try to lock the whole file. > Parent: 2.0 - F_TLOCK [ 0, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 2.1 - F_TEST [ 0, 1] PASSED. > Child: 2.2 - F_TEST [ 0, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 2.3 - F_TEST [ 0,7fffffff] PASSED. > Child: 2.4 - F_TEST [ 1, 1] PASSED. > Child: 2.5 - F_TEST [ 1, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 2.6 - F_TEST [ 1,7fffffff] PASSED. > Child: 2.7 - F_TEST [7fffffff, 1] PASSED. > Child: 2.8 - F_TEST [7fffffff, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 2.9 - F_TEST [7fffffff,7fffffff] WARNING! > Child: **** Expected EOVERFLOW, returned EACCES... > Parent: 2.10 - F_ULOCK [ 0, ENDING] PASSED. > > Test #6 - Try to lock the MAXEOF byte. > Parent: 6.0 - F_TLOCK [7fffffff, 1] PASSED. > Child: 6.1 - F_TEST [7ffffffe, 1] PASSED. > Child: 6.2 - F_TEST [7ffffffe, 2] PASSED. > Child: 6.3 - F_TEST [7ffffffe, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 6.4 - F_TEST [7fffffff, 1] PASSED. > Child: 6.5 - F_TEST [7fffffff, 2] WARNING! > Child: **** Expected EOVERFLOW, returned EACCES... > Child: 6.6 - F_TEST [7fffffff, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 6.7 - F_TEST [80000000, ENDING] PASSED. > Child: 6.8 - F_TEST [80000000, 1] PASSED. > Child: 6.9 - F_TEST [80000000,7fffffff] PASSED. > Child: 6.10 - F_TEST [80000000,80000000] PASSED. > Parent: 6.11 - F_ULOCK [7fffffff, 1] PASSED. > > ======================================================= > > Test#1 , Test#2 and Test#6 Shows warning in locking .. i.e. > Expected .something. and returned some-other-thing .. > > Are these locking well-known issues? > > Are there any patch available for the same? Are these serious warnings? > > Thanks, > Rahul > ¢éì¹» ®&Þ~º&¶¬-+-±éݶ¥Sw®zË>±Êâmébzìg~ȧ¶>¡Ü¨}©z²Æ zÚ&j:+v?¨¾«'êçzZ+?Ê+zf£¢·hs^§~??Ûiÿûàz¹ ®w¥¢¸?T¨èÚ&¢)ߢf -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
