A good and a bad news

[Talpey, Thomas]

Have you tried replacing the sync with a sleep? Your code isn't
checking the return code from read(), and it seems that it will
continue to attempt read()s for some time after reaching eof,
depending on whether this /mnt/nfs/ro file is smaller than 20MB.
If the file is larger, then perhaps readahead is happening.

BTW, what exactly is this test trying to do? It prints the time
but it also seems to be checksumming the data it reads, and it
is reading one block more than the size. I think!

Tom.

At 09:46 AM 3/21/2007, Vincent ROQUETA wrote:
>Hello all,
>
>Two news. 
>First the bad : 
>The umount problem I have seen on NFSv4 exists also on v3
>
>The good one :
>If I do a sync on v3, the problem disappear - Well, consider that is a read 
>only test, closing the file it use.
>
>
>mount -t nfs 129.183.140.144:/Backup/ /mnt/nfs/ ; read_s /mnt/nfs/ro 
>20000000 ; umount /mnt/nfs
>-> Return : /mnt/nfs: device is busy
>
>mount -t nfs 129.183.140.144:/Backup/ /mnt/nfs/ ; read_s /mnt/nfs/ro 
>20000000 ; sync ; umount /mnt/nfs
>-> correct umount 
>
>I join the read_s test program. (Read with an initial seek )
>
>Have a nice day ...
>Vincent
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>NFSv4 mailing list
>NFSv4 at linux-nfs.org
>http://linux-nfs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nfsv4