Re: Re: du reports wrong directory sizes on kernel 2.6(.1rc2) and cifs 0.9.4
Luis Claudio R. Goncalves <lclaudio <at> conectiva.com.br>
2004-01-13 19:10:20 GMT
Hi!
Reading both traces, the only difference lies on the very end of both
files, the write portion. Notice that not only the file sizes but also the
file rights are different... and the one reported by cifs is a bit weird.
http://empx.dyndns.org/strace_cifs.txt
fstat64(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 2), ...}) = 0
mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x401b0000
write(1, " 17K -rwxrwSrwt 1 root ro"..., 101) = 101
http://empx.dyndns.org/strace_smbfs.txt
fstat64(1, {st_mode=S_IFCHR|0600, st_rdev=makedev(136, 2), ...}) = 0
mmap2(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) =
0x401b0000
write(1, "526K -rwxr--r-- 1 root ro"..., 101) = 101
Mike, two questions: are you using the same mount options for both smbfs
and cifs? Are you using the binary version of mount.cifs from the website
or have you compiled it from the sources?
[]'s
Luis
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 07:47:09PM +0100, Michael Pflüger wrote:
| well, the differences i see, i was using a 2.6 kernel as i said, and the
| shares are on a Windows XP SP1 box, i havent tried connecting to a samba
| server with cifs as i dont need this as of yet, most PCs run still
| windows in our home network..
| I've got another Linux box with kernel 2.4, i could install cifs and try
| it there too..
| Here are the straces on the 2.6 System:
| http://empx.dyndns.org/strace_cifs.txt
| http://empx.dyndns.org/strace_smbfs.txt
| The file is 526K as ls -s reports correctly with smbfs, yet with cifs it
| says 17K..
| Hope this helps
|
| Mike
|
| >Hi!
| >
| >I've been trying to reproduce the problem you're facing and had no success
| >at all. I've tested it with cifs 0.99a, samba 3.0.1 and kernel 2.4.23-benh1
| >(ibook) and 2.4.22+patches (i386).
| >
| >Could you please describe your test environment and send me an strace log
| >for
| >a "ls -l" with smbfs and another one for cifs? I'm quite curious...
| >
| >On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 11:52:20PM +0100, Michael Pflüger wrote:
| >| I have tried it with the current 2.6 cifs development kernel which
| >| includes the latest cifs, but i still have this problem.
| >| ls -l displays the correcz sizes as i said, however, when i do ls -ls,
| >| the sizes in front of the filenames are far too small too (159K for a
| >| 5MB file..)
| >| As i already said, when i use smbfs to mount the share all this does not
| >| happen and sizes are reported correctly.
| >| I hope a developer can tell me his opinion about it and if it can be
| >fixed?
| >
| >Regards,
| >Luis
| >
| >
---end quoted text---
--
--
[ Luis Claudio R. Goncalves lclaudio <at> conectiva.com.br ]
[ Fingerprint: 4FDD B8C4 3C59 34BD 8BE9 2696 7203 D980 A448 C8F8 ]
[ Msc has come!!!! - Conectiva HA Team - Gospel User - Linuxer - !Java ]
[ Fault Tolerance - Real-Time - Distributed Systems - IECLB - IS 40:31 ]
[ LateNite Programmer -- My Utmost for His Highest -- ]
RSS Feed