On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 12:59:26PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 15:56 +0100, Kasparek Tomas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 05:34:07PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 13:05 +0100, Kasparek Tomas wrote:
> > > > Hm, not happy to say that but it still does not work after some time. Now
> > > > the problem is opposite there are no connections to the server according to
> > > > netstat on client, just time to time there is
> > > >
> > > > pcnlp1.fit.vutbr.cz.15234 > kazi.fit.vutbr.cz.nfs: 40 null
> > > > kazi.fit.vutbr.cz.nfs > pcnlp1.fit.vutbr.cz.15234: reply ok 24 null
> > > >
> > > > (kazi is server). Will try to investigate more details.
> > >
> > > OK. Here is one more try. I've tightened up some locking issues with the
> > > previous patch.
> >
> > Did tried this new version. Applied it to 2.6.27.10, but the behaviour is
> > the same like with the first version - when old mounts are removed by amd
> > new one are not created, fter a while, there are no sockets on the client
> > and just CLOSED sockets on server. Client is issuing null RPC checks each
> > 30sec and they are OK, but no other communication between client and server
> > takes place.
> >
> > 15:45:41.238796 IP pcnlp1.897490 > kazi.nfs: 40 null
> > 15:45:41.239009 IP kazi.nfs > pcnlp1.897490: reply ok 24 null
> >
> >
> > I will try to get more info, but if you have some idea where to look or
> > what to try, it will be helpful.
> >
> > Thanks for your help
>
> Wait. You're using amd when testing? Could you please rather retry using
> just a static mount? amd has historically had way too many bugs
> (particularly w.r.t. tcp) to be considered a reliable test.
Will try, but with static mount there is one stable TCP connection between
client and server so this problem can not happen at all isn't it?
--
Tomas Kasparek, PhD student E-mail: [email protected]
CVT FIT VUT Brno, L127 Web: http://www.fit.vutbr.cz/~kasparek
Bozetechova 1, 612 66 Fax: +420 54114-1270
Brno, Czech Republic Phone: +420 54114-1220
jabber: [email protected]
GPG: 2F1E 1AAF FD3B CFA3 1537 63BD DCBE 18FF A035 53BC
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 11:24 +0100, Kasparek Tomas wrote:
> > Wait. You're using amd when testing? Could you please rather retry using
> > just a static mount? amd has historically had way too many bugs
> > (particularly w.r.t. tcp) to be considered a reliable test.
>
> Will try, but with static mount there is one stable TCP connection between
> client and server so this problem can not happen at all isn't it?
It can. The client will automatically disconnect when the mountpoint has
not used for 5 minutes.
As for amd, I know that older versions used to set absolutely insane
timeouts for tcp connections. They'd use the same defaults as UDP, IOW
timeo=7, retrans=3 ('cat /proc/mounts' should be able to tell you if
that's the case for your setup).
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer
NetApp
[email protected]
http://www.netapp.com