On Sun, 2026-03-15 at 07:29 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > Servers use the max_request_size to properly size their receive > buffers, and the client is responsible for adhering to that value. I > don't think you can stick a bunch of operations in a request compound > and then put a huge WRITE at the end that blows out max_request_size, > and expect the server to be OK with that. > > ISTM the client should clamp the length down to something shorter > that > allows the request to fit. Maybe drop the last folio and force > another > request? Performance would suck but it would work. > > All that said, the server in this case isn't sizing max_request_size > with enough overhead for the client to actually achieve a full 1M > write, which is just dumb. Dell should fix that.
I'm aware of what the spec says, Jeff. We're not putting "a bunch of operations" before the WRITE. There's a SEQUENCE, PUTFH, WRITE and GETATTR. The point is, we expect the value of maxwrite to be set to a reasonable value w.r.t. max_request_size so that the client doesn't have to sanity check everybody and their dog's server. -- Trond Myklebust Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace [email protected], [email protected]
