From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 14 15:22:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5EEE16A4FE for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:22:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from alogis.com (firewall2.alogis.com [62.8.223.1]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2581D43D45 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:22:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: from alogis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by alogis.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0EFLxQ3010856; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk@alogis.com) Received: (from hk@localhost) by alogis.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j0EFLx2G010855; Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from hk) Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:21:59 +0100 From: Holger Kipp To: Brian McCann Message-ID: <20050114152159.GA10608@intserv.int1.b.intern> References: <2b5f066d050114070172ac895f@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2b5f066d050114070172ac895f@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ggatec & ggated question/issue X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:22:03 -0000 On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 10:01:10AM -0500, Brian McCann wrote: > #echo "foo" > /share/bar > > Then mounting the client, I see the file. Now I delete the file on > the server, I can still cat the file on the client. It's like the > client can still read the old superblock or something. Any ideas on > why this is doing this, or how to make it work so the client sees what > the server sees? Looking at http://kerneltrap.org/node/3104 should explain this. My current idea (IANAKH) would be that the client is caching the directory and file data and is not notified that anything has changed on disk, so there is no reason to refresh the cached data from disk. The behaviour sounds similar to two FreeBSD-Systems accessing the same disk device via SCSI (without synchronizing disk access). Regards, Holger Kipp