heavy NFS writes lead to corrup summary in superblock

[Scott Long]

Eric Anderson wrote:
> Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> 
>> п'ятниця 09 червень 2006 12:58, Scott Long написав:
>>
>>> Can you actually measure a performance difference with using the -b
>>> 65535 option on newfs?  All of the I/O is buffered anyways and
>>> contiguous data is already going to be written in 64k blocks.
>>
>>
>> My reasons for using the largest block size was more of the space 
>> efficiency -- the fs typically holds no more than 20 files in 10 
>> directories, but the smallest file is 1Gb in length. This is also why 
>> I chose ufs1 (-O1) over ufs2 -- we don't need ACLs on this filesystem.
>>
>> I never benchmarked the speed on the single drives, other than to 
>> compare with my RAID5 array (which puzzlingly always loses to a single 
>> drive, but that's a different story).
> 
> 
> Just curious - what NFS mount options are being used, and are you 
> changing any sysctl's (vfs/nfs related)?
> 

It's hard to beleive that NFS would be responsible for corrupting the 
filesystem.  You should be able to have a consistent and correct unmount
regardless of whether NFS is in use or what options it is using.

Scott