SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 2012

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 21 Jan 2012 11:01:27 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Chris Schanzle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 01/20/2012 09:51 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
>>
>> I feel obligated to vent about the ongoing mess-up of the nfs-utils
>> package.
>>
>> In the nutshell, all of my SL6.1 machines are affected (not "both
>> machines",
>> both dozens of machines, 24 is the last count).
>>
>> The "/" directory is filling up with 1 Mbyte core files from umount.nfs
>> at the rate of about 3 core dumps per minute.
>
>
>
> Just wanted to put a "me too" out there.  I admit to not keeping up with the
> various nfs-utils versions and just recently joined this list.
>
> Seemed that umount.nfs dumping core caused /etc/mtab to not get cleaned up,
> so you had many duplicates in the output of say, 'df'.
>
> We don't use kerberos, just NIS and the automounter, so it seemed like a lot
> of the discussion didn't apply to us.  It didn't affect all our systems
> either.
>
> I feel the same frustration.  I have stopped rolling out EL6 and I'm
> apologizing to my existing early adopter users.  With this issue and my
> previously mentioned email about the inability to reboot successfully (due
> to umount issues) not generating any discussion, I'm preparing to hop back
> to the other prominent NA enterprise Linux derivative.  It's great to have
> choices.
>
> PS - I just noticed the mailing list doesn't add a Reply-To: field to direct
> replies to the list.

Chris, I'm not sure you can blame SL for this one at all. Our favorite
upstream vendor occasionally publishes software with a bug, although
they're very good about testing and fixing any reported issues, which
is why some of us pay them for support licenses and others take
advantage of the goodness of free software. Is there a sign or pointer
that this was, in fact, an SL compilation generated bug?

Are you mounting NFS directories at / ? That's usually a *REALLY* bad
idea, because if the NFS mount has any issues, it interferes with any
function that glances in / for permissions or other information. If
not, do you have any idea why it'd dumping those files in / ?

ATOM RSS1 RSS2