Search Results

Search found 39 results on 2 pages for 'nfs4'.

Page 2/2 | < Previous Page | 1 2 

  • Why 'nobody' always starts a new `find` program that always consume my memory?

    - by UniMouS
    $ ps -elf | grep ... 0 D nobody 27320 27319 2 90 10 - 353471 sleep_ 07:54 ? 00:02:19 /usr/bin/find / -ignore_readdir_race ( -fstype NFS -o -fstype nfs -o -fstype nfs4 -o -fstype afs -o -fstype binfmt_misc -o -fstype proc -o -fstype smbfs -o -fstype autofs -o -fstype iso9660 -o -fstype ncpfs -o -fstype coda -o -fstype devpts -o -fstype ftpfs -o -fstype devfs -o -fstype mfs -o -fstype shfs -o -fstype sysfs -o -fstype cifs -o -fstype lustre_lite -o -fstype tmpfs -o -fstype usbfs -o -fstype udf -o -fstype ocfs2 -o -type d -regex \(^/tmp$\)\|\(^/usr/tmp$\)\|\(^/var/tmp$\)\|\(^/afs$\)\|\(^/amd$\)\|\(^/alex$\)\|\(^/var/spool$\)\|\(^/sfs$\)\|\(^/media$\)\|\(^/var/lib/schroot/mount$\) ) -prune -o -print0 ... This job always start automatically and consumes my memory. Even after I kill it, it will starts several hours later. What's that job? EDIT Note: the pid is different from the above because I killed the above one, wait for several hours, then the second one comes. $ pstree -psl |-anacron(25920)---sh(25929)---run-parts(25930)---locate(26343)---updatedb.findut(26348)-+-frcode(26358) | |-sort(26357) | `-updatedb.findut(26356)---su(26387)---sh(26402)---find(26403) This is what it look like in a graphical tool:

    Read the article

  • Error "fileid changed" when accessing files over NFS

    - by Roman Prikhodchenko
    I have an nfs-kernel-server configured and running on Ubuntu 10.04 Server. /export THIRD_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) SECOND_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) /export/ebs THIRD_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) SECOND_SERVER_IP(rw,nohide,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) I mounted the exported folder to the second server: mount -t nfs4 -o proto=tcp,port=2049 NFS_SERVER_IP_HERE:/ebs /ebs and it works just fine. I mounted it to the third server but I cannot access files from it. ls -l /ebs ls: reading directory /ebs: Stale NFS file handle total 0 The syslog on the third server says: kernel: [11575.483720] NFS: server NFS_SERVER_IP_HERE error: fileid changed kernel: [11575.483722] fsid 0:14: expected fileid 0x2, got 0x6e001 Some info: uname -r 2.6.32-312-ec2 uname -m i686

    Read the article

  • Error "fileid changed" when accessing files over NFS

    - by Roman Prikhodchenko
    I have an nfs-kernel-server configured and running on Ubuntu 10.04 Server. /export THIRD_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) SECOND_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) /export/ebs THIRD_SERVER_IP(rw,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) SECOND_SERVER_IP(rw,nohide,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) I mounted the exported folder to the second server: mount -t nfs4 -o proto=tcp,port=2049 NFS_SERVER_IP_HERE:/ebs /ebs and it works just fine. I mounted it to the third server but I cannot access files from it. ls -l /ebs ls: reading directory /ebs: Stale NFS file handle total 0 The syslog on the third server says: kernel: [11575.483720] NFS: server NFS_SERVER_IP_HERE error: fileid changed kernel: [11575.483722] fsid 0:14: expected fileid 0x2, got 0x6e001 Some info: uname -r 2.6.32-312-ec2 uname -m i686

    Read the article

  • How can I view updatedb database content, and then exclude certain files/paths?

    - by rubo77
    The updatedb database on my debian server is quite slow. where is the database located and how can I view its content and find out if there are some paths with useless stuff, that I could add to the prunepaths? my /etc/updatedb.conf looks like this: ... # filesystems which are pruned from updatedb database PRUNEFS="NFS nfs nfs4 afs binfmt_misc proc smbfs autofs iso9660 ncpfs coda devpts ftpfs devfs mfs shfs sysfs cifs lustre_lite tmpfs usbfs udf" export PRUNEFS # paths which are pruned from updatedb database PRUNEPATHS="/tmp /usr/tmp /var/tmp /afs /amd /alex /var/spool /sfs /media /var/backups/rsnapshot /var/mod_pagespeed/" ... and how can I prune all paths that contain */.git/* and */.svn/* ?

    Read the article

  • NFS Issues in Gnome

    - by Alex
    I mount NFSv4 export via /etc/fstab and mount and use the shared folder in nautilus. There are two issues: When I copy a large file (around 4 GB) to the NFS server, the progress bar rapidly goes to 2 GB and then basically stops moving. But the copy s still in progress - it is just not displayed well When I disconnect from the network without unmounting the nfs share, nautilus freezes. How can I work around that? /etc/export on the server /export/share 192.168.0.0/24(rw,sync,insecure,no_subtree_check,anonuid=1000,anongid=1000) /etc/fstab on the client: server:/share /mnt nfs4 soft,tcp

    Read the article

  • centos 6 nfs: logs not showing anywhere

    - by ancillary
    Can someone please tell me where NFS logs in centos 6? Or perhaps where I can tell NFS to send logs? At the present time, there appears to be no such setting. Trying to get the thing to work without logs is quite frustrating. [root@houston netshare]# locate nfs| grep log [root@houston netshare]# [root@houston netshare]# grep -Rni "nfs" /var/log /var/log/anaconda.storage.log:23:20:41:33,962 DEBUG : registered device format class NFS as nfs /var/log/anaconda.storage.log:24:20:41:33,962 DEBUG : registered device format class NFSv4 as nfs4 This is a day-old centos 6 install from livecd and yum update has been run.

    Read the article

  • NFSv4 with idmap

    - by HTF
    The following errors appear on the NFS server, could you please advise how I can fix this? Details: System: CentOS release 6.4, NFS: nfs-utils-1.2.3-36 # cat /etc/idmapd.conf [General] Domain = domain.com [Mapping] Nobody-User = nobody Nobody-Group = nobody [Translation] Method = nsswitch Sep 3 08:25:28 snode1 rpc.idmapd[1382]: nss_getpwnam: name '0' does not map into domain 'domain.com' Sep 3 08:25:29 snode1 rpc.idmapd[1382]: nss_getpwnam: name '500' does not map into domain 'domain.com' EDIT: 03 Sep 2013 10:41 Please note that I'm using NFSv4 and these errors appear on NFS server only (not NFS clients). Server: # cat /etc/sysconfig/nfs MOUNTD_NFS_V2="no" MOUNTD_NFS_V3="no" ... RPCNFSDARGS="-N 2 -N 3" Clients: # cat /etc/fstab server:/ /data nfs4 defaults,hard,intr,timeo=15,_netdev,noatime,nodiratime,nosuid 0 0

    Read the article

  • OSX : Setup for filestorage in medium business

    - by Franatique
    In our office every machine runs OSX. In search of an ideal storage and sharing solution we decided to let OSX Server handle all account information and auth requests whereas an 7TB QNAP provides NFS shares. All shares are published as mounts in the companywide LDAP. As it turns out, handling permissions in this situation is very clumsy (e.g. inherit permissions on newly created files). Unfortunately using NFS4 in combination with ACLs did not solve the problem. As a possible solution I set up a iSCSI connection between QNAP and the machine running OSX Server which in turn serves the LUN as AFP share. Permission handling works like a charm for this setup. Although I am a bit concerned about the performance of this setup. As we are a fast growing company we expect the solution to serve at least 100 clients while using files aprox. above 100MB each. Are there any known drawbacks of this solution?

    Read the article

  • updatedb & locate command problem - Files from external hard drive are no longer indexed after rebooting

    - by user784637
    Files from my external hard drive are no longer indexed after rebooting. I have to remount and then run # updatedb after each reboot. The problem is updatedb takes a few minutes for my external hard drives. Is there any way I can retain indexing for my externals after I reboot so that the locate command can search through my externals? EDIT: Per Request here are my specs: $ cat /etc/updatedb.conf PRUNE_BIND_MOUNTS="yes" # PRUNENAMES=".git .bzr .hg .svn" PRUNEPATHS="/tmp /var/spool /media" PRUNEFS="NFS nfs nfs4 rpc_pipefs afs binfmt_misc proc smbfs autofs iso9660 ncpfs coda devpts ftpfs devfs mfs shfs sysfs cifs lustre_lite tmpfs usbfs udf fuse.glusterfs fuse.sshfs ecryptfs fusesmb devtmpfs" # mount /dev/sda5 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro) proc on /proc type proc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys type sysfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /sys/fs/fuse/connections type fusectl (rw) none on /sys/kernel/debug type debugfs (rw) none on /sys/kernel/security type securityfs (rw) none on /dev type devtmpfs (rw,mode=0755) none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,noexec,nosuid,gid=5,mode=0620) none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,nodev) none on /var/run type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) none on /var/lock type tmpfs (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) none on /lib/init/rw type tmpfs (rw,nosuid,mode=0755) binfmt_misc on /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc type binfmt_misc (rw,noexec,nosuid,nodev) gvfs-fuse-daemon on /home/me/.gvfs type fuse.gvfs-fuse-daemon (rw,nosuid,nodev,user=me) /dev/sdb1 on /media/me type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions) /dev/sdd1 on /media/Little Boy type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions) /dev/sde1 on /media/Fat Man type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=4096,default_permissions) # on_ac_power; echo $? 255

    Read the article

  • How Do I Stop NFS Clients from Using All of the NFS Server's Resources?

    - by Ken S.
    I have a v4 NFS server running on Ubuntu 12.04LTS. It is the main repository for the web assets that four external nginx webservers mount to serve up to site visitors. These client servers connect to it via a read-only mount. Each of these RO servers has this displayed when I check the mounts: 10.0.0.90:/assets on /var/www/assets type nfs4 (ro,addr=10.0.0.90,clientaddr=0.0.0.0) The NFS master's /etc/exports file contains entries like this for each server: /mnt/lvm-ext4 10.0.0.40(ro,fsid=0,insecure,no_subtree_check,async) The problem that I'm seeing is that these clients are eventually utilizing all the RAM on the NFS server and causing it to crash. If I do a watch free -m I can watch the used memory creep up until it's used and then see the free buffers/cache entry creep down to near zero before the server eventually locks up requiring a reboot. There is some sort of memory leak somewhere that is causing this, and the optimal solution would be to find it and fix it, but in the meantime I need to find a way to have the NFS server protect itself from connected clients using all it's RAM. There must be some sort of setting that limits the resources the clients can use, but I can't seem to find it. I've tried adjusting the values for rsize and wsize but they don't seem to help or be related. Thanks for any tips.

    Read the article

  • Poor write performance on Debian server running NFS with 22TB exported JFS filesystem

    - by user143546
    I am currently running a debian server that is exporting a large JFS filesystem (22TB) over NFS (nfs-kernel-server.) When attempting to write to the NFS share, the performance is very poor. The 22TB disk is sitting on a NAS mounted using iSCSI. It will bust for a moment near expected line speed, and then sit idle for several seconds. Very little traffic measured in the low kb/sec. The wait peeks on write. When reading from the NFS mount, the system operates at expected speeds (11MB/sec). The issue does not occur when using SFTP, rsync, or local coping (non-nfs). The issue persists between stable and testing releases. On the same machine I have a 14TB ext4 filesystem using the exact same export configuration that does not share the issue. This share is not in regular use and thus not consuming resources. NFS Server: cat /etc/exports /data2 10.1.20.86(rw,no_subtree_check,async,all_squash) cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler noop [deadline] cfq cat /etc/default/nfs-kernel-server RPCNFSDCOUNT=8 RPCNFSDPRIORITY=0 RPCMOUNTDOPTS=--manage-gids NEED_SVCGSSD= RPCSVCGSSDOPTS= NFS Client: cat /etc/fstab 10.1.20.100:/data2 /root/incoming nfs rw,noatime,soft,intr,noacl 0 2 cat /sys/block/sdb/queue/scheduler noop [deadline] cfq cat /proc/mounts 10.1.20.100:/data2/ /root/incoming nfs4 rw,noatime,vers=4,rsize=262144,wsize=262144,namlen=255,soft,proto=tcp,port=0,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,clientaddr=10.1.20.86,minorversion=0,addr=10.1.20.100 0 0 This problem has me pretty stumped. Any help would be greatly welcomed. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • CentOS 5.4 NFS v4 client file permissions differ from original files & NFS Share file contents

    - by p4guru
    Having a strange problem with NFS share and file permissions on the 1 out of the 2 NFS clients, web1 has file permissions issues but web2 is fine. web1 and web2 are load balanced web servers. So questions are: how do I ensure NFS share file contents retain the same permissions for user/group as the original files on web1 server like they do on web2 server ? how do I reverse what I did on web1, i tried unmount command and said command not found ? Information: I'm using 3 dedicated server setup. All 3 servers CentOS 5.4 64bit based. servers are as follows: web1 - nfs client with file permissions issues web2 - nfs client file permissions are OKAY db1 - nfs share at /nfsroot web2 nfs client was setup by my web host, while web1 was setup by me. I did the following commands on web1 and it worked with updating db1 nfsroot share at /nfsroot/site_css with latest files on web1 but the file permissions don't stick even if i use tar with -p command to perserve file permissions ? cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zcp site_css/ > site_css.tar.gz mount -t nfs4 nfsshareipaddress:/site_css /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css/ -o rw,soft cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zxf site_css.tar.gz But checking on web1 file permissions no longer username user/group but owned by nobody ? but web2 file permissions correct ? This is only a problem for web1 while web2 is correct ? Looks like numeric ids aren't the same ? Not sure how to correct this ? web1 with incorrect user/group of nobody ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web1 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 99 99 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 correct username user/group permissions ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css I checked db1 /nfsroot/site_css and user/group ownership was incorrect for newer files dated feb22 owned by root and not username ? on db1 originally incorrect root assigned user/group for new feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Then I chmod them all on db1 and chown to set to right ownership on db1 so it looks like below on db1 once corrected the newer feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css but still web1 shows owned by nobody ? while web2 shows correct permissions ? web1 still with incorrect user/group of nobody not matching what web2 and db1 are set to ? ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Just so confusing so any help is very very much appreciated! thanks

    Read the article

  • CentOS 5.4 NFS v4 client file permissions differ from original files & NFS Share file contents

    - by p4guru
    Having a strange problem with NFS share and file permissions on the 1 out of the 2 NFS clients, web1 has file permissions issues but web2 is fine. web1 and web2 are load balanced web servers. So questions are: how do I ensure NFS share file contents retain the same permissions for user/group as the original files on web1 server like they do on web2 server ? how do I reverse what I did on web1, i tried unmount command and said command not found ? Information: I'm using 3 dedicated server setup. All 3 servers CentOS 5.4 64bit based. servers are as follows: web1 - nfs client with file permissions issues web2 - nfs client file permissions are OKAY db1 - nfs share at /nfsroot web2 nfs client was setup by my web host, while web1 was setup by me. I did the following commands on web1 and it worked with updating db1 nfsroot share at /nfsroot/site_css with latest files on web1 but the file permissions don't stick even if i use tar with -p command to perserve file permissions ? cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zcp site_css/ > site_css.tar.gz mount -t nfs4 nfsshareipaddress:/site_css /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css/ -o rw,soft cd /home/username/public_html/forums/script/ tar -zxf site_css.tar.gz But checking on web1 file permissions no longer username user/group but owned by nobody ? but web2 file permissions correct ? This is only a problem for web1 while web2 is correct ? Looks like numeric ids aren't the same ? Not sure how to correct this ? web1 with incorrect user/group of nobody ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web1 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 99 99 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 99 99 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 correct username user/group permissions ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css web2 numeric ids ls -n /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48 drwxrwxrwx 2 503 500 4096 Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 503 500 4096 Dec 2 14:51 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5877 Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 503 500 5876 Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css I checked db1 /nfsroot/site_css and user/group ownership was incorrect for newer files dated feb22 owned by root and not username ? on db1 originally incorrect root assigned user/group for new feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw------- 1 username nfs 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Then I chmod them all on db1 and chown to set to right ownership on db1 so it looks like below on db1 once corrected the newer feb22 dated files ls -alh /nfsroot/site_css total 44K drwxrwxrwx 2 root root 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 . drwxr-xr-x 17 root root 4.0K Feb 17 12:06 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 username username 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css but still web1 shows owned by nobody ? while web2 shows correct permissions ? web1 still with incorrect user/group of nobody not matching what web2 and db1 are set to ? ls -alh /home/username/public_html/forums/scripts/site_css total 48K drwxrwxrwx 2 nobody nobody 4.0K Feb 22 02:37 ./ drwxr-xr-x 3 username username 4.0K Feb 22 02:43 ../ -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 1 Nov 30 2006 index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-057c3df0-00011.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 22 02:37 style-95001864-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-b1879ba7-00002.css -rw-r--r-- 1 nobody nobody 5.8K Feb 18 05:37 style-cc2f96c9-00011.css Just so confusing so any help is very very much appreciated! thanks

    Read the article

  • VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached

    - by Rick Koshi
    I'm running a Linux 2.6.36 kernel, and I'm seeing some random errors. Things like ls: error while loading shared libraries: libpthread.so.0: cannot open shared object file: Error 23 Yes, my system can't consistently run an 'ls' command. :( I note several errors in my dmesg output: # dmesg | tail [2808967.543203] EXT4-fs (sda3): re-mounted. Opts: (null) [2837776.220605] xv[14450] general protection ip:7f20c20c6ac6 sp:7fff3641b368 error:0 in libpng14.so.14.4.0[7f20c20a9000+29000] [4931344.685302] EXT4-fs (md16): re-mounted. Opts: (null) [4982666.631444] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982666.764240] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982767.360574] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982901.904628] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982964.930556] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982966.352170] VFS: file-max limit 1231582 reached [4982966.649195] top[31095]: segfault at 14 ip 00007fd6ace42700 sp 00007fff20746530 error 6 in libproc-3.2.8.so[7fd6ace3b000+e000] Obviously, the file-max errors look suspicious, being clustered together and recent. # cat /proc/sys/fs/file-max 1231582 # cat /proc/sys/fs/file-nr 1231712 0 1231582 That also looks a bit odd to me, but the thing is, there's no way I have 1.2 million files open on this system. I'm the only one using it, and it's not visible to anyone outside the local network. # lsof | wc 16046 148253 1882901 # ps -ef | wc 574 6104 44260 I saw some documentation saying: file-max & file-nr: The kernel allocates file handles dynamically, but as yet it doesn't free them again. The value in file-max denotes the maximum number of file- handles that the Linux kernel will allocate. When you get lots of error messages about running out of file handles, you might want to increase this limit. Historically, the three values in file-nr denoted the number of allocated file handles, the number of allocated but unused file handles, and the maximum number of file handles. Linux 2.6 always reports 0 as the number of free file handles -- this is not an error, it just means that the number of allocated file handles exactly matches the number of used file handles. Attempts to allocate more file descriptors than file-max are reported with printk, look for "VFS: file-max limit reached". My first reading of this is that the kernel basically has a built-in file descriptor leak, but I find that very hard to believe. It would imply that any system in active use needs to be rebooted every so often to free up the file descriptors. As I said, I can't believe this would be true, since it's normal to me to have Linux systems stay up for months (even years) at a time. On the other hand, I also can't believe that my nearly-idle system is holding over a million files open. Does anyone have any ideas, either for fixes or further diagnosis? I could, of course, just reboot the system, but I don't want this to be a recurring problem every few weeks. As a stopgap measure, I've quit Firefox, which was accounting for almost 2000 lines of lsof output (!) even though I only had one window open, and now I can run 'ls' again, but I doubt that will fix the problem for long. (edit: Oops, spoke too soon. By the time I finished typing out this question, the symptom was/is back) Thanks in advance for any help. And another update: My system was basically unusable, so I decided I had no option but to reboot. But before I did, I carefully quit one process at a time, checking /proc/sys/fs/file-nr after each termination. I found that, predictably, the number of open files gradually went down as I closed things down. Unfortunately, it wasn't a large effect. Yes, I was able to clear up 5000-10000 open files, but there were still over 1.2 million left. I shut down just about everything. All interactive shells, except for the one ssh I left open to finish closing down, httpd, even nfs service. Basically everything in the process table that wasn't a kernel process, and there were still an appalling number of files apparently left open. After the reboot, I found that /proc/sys/fs/file-nr showed about 2000 files open, which is much more reasonable. Starting up 2 Xvnc sessions as usual, along with the dozen or so monitoring windows I like to keep open, brought the total up to about 4000 files. I can see nothing wrong with that, of course, but I've obviously failed to identify the root cause. I'm still looking for ideas, since I definitely expect it to happen again. And another update, the next day: I watched the system carefully, and discovered that /proc/sys/fs/file-nr showed a growth of about 900 open files per hour. I shut down the system's only NFS client for the night, and the growth stopped. Mind you, it didn't free up the resources, but it did at least stop consuming more. Is this a known bug with NFS? I'll be bringing the NFS client back online today, and I'll narrow it down further. If anyone is familiar with this behavior, feel free to jump in with "Yeah, NFS4 has this problem, go back to NFS3" or something like that.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2