[OpenAFS] Linux find command inconsistent

[Stephan Wiesand]

On Sep 15, 2015, at 15:46 , John Sopko wrote:

> I run a monthly report to find all mount points and volumes using the
> linux find command. I used to run this on Red Hat 5 for years. I moved
> the script to Red Hat 6 and found after testing that on Red Hat 6 and
> 7 and Ubuntu 14.04 the find command give inconsistent results and does
> not find nearly as many files as Red Hat 5 does.
>=20
> I can copy the Red Hat 5 find binary to Red Hat 6 which executes ok
> but still has a problem.

The same "problem"?

> I tried serveral client machines.
>=20
> For example on Red Hat 5 I run a command to find all directories and =
count them:
>=20
> % lsb_release -d
> Description:    Red Hat Enterprise Linux Client release 5.11 (Tikanga)
>=20
> |sopko@kramer:56% pwd
> /afs/cs.unc.edu/project
>=20
> % find . -noleaf -type d | wc -l
> 343403
>=20
> On Red Hat 6 I get:
>=20
> % lsb_release -d
> Description:    Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation release 6.7 =
(Santiago)
>=20
> |sopko@lark1:81% pwd
> /afs/cs.unc.edu/project
>=20
> |sopko@lark1:82% find . -noleaf -type d | wc -l
> find: `./par/Last_Backup/Last_Backup': No such device

This suggests the client is refusing to recurse into the very same =
backup volume (I assume "par" is a volume root and "par/Last_Backup" is =
a mount point for the corresponding .backup volume?).

> 38763
>=20
> I also like to use the find command to set afs acl's on directories
> but can not trust it to work.
>=20
> I am running 1.6.11 on the servers, 1.6.9 on the rhel5 client and
> 1.6.11 on the rhel6 client and 1.6.14 on Ubuntu. Can anyone shed any
> light on what is going on?


See above. The RHEL6/Ubuntu result is likely to be the better one.

In any case, find and AFS have never been friends and probably can't be.

OpenAFS releases since 1.6.10 include the volscan(8) utility. It will =
not be quite as trivial to use for your purposes since you need to run =
it on volumes and stitch paths as seen by clients together yourself, but =
for just that reason results will be meaningful - for example in the =
presence of circular mounts. And it's much more efficient too.