SUMMARY: ls question

Thanks to Alan Pae, Darren Dunham and Carsten Knudsen

The most plausible answer is this:
Caching. UFS filesystems can only be mounted by a single host. Since the
data on the disk is not allowed to change underneath, the host can cache
much of it. That means that the 'ls' could have been satisfied entirely
from the cache, but the other data could not.







Andrew_Rotramel@cch-lis.com@sunmanagers.org on 06/29/2004 01:07:29 PM

Sent by:    sunmanagers-bounces@sunmanagers.org


To:    sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
cc:

Subject:    ls question


This morning I had problems accessing the files on an array. format would
not return a list of drives and I was getting SCSI transport errors in
/var/adm/messages. The problem was fixed by rebooting the fiber channel
switch between the server and the array. I was pleased that my Oracle
database did not drop, but waited patiently for the disks to become
available again.

My question is about ls. During the access problem, before I rebooted the
switch, I could cd down to a subdirectory and could get an ls listing of
the files, but I could not get an ls -l listing of the files. Am I correct
that since I could drill down into a directory, that I could read the
inodes and they were OK? If I could read a directory file, why could I not
get info on the files in that directory?

Andrew
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
 http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers
_______________________________________________
sunmanagers mailing list
sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org
http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagers