From: "J. Bruce Fields" Subject: Re: kernel 2.6 and simulated flock() with posix locks Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:38:02 -0500 Message-ID: <20080225163802.GB10402@fieldses.org> References: <47C2C09D.2010203@arx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org To: Thanos Chatziathanassiou Return-path: Received: from mail.fieldses.org ([66.93.2.214]:51601 "EHLO fieldses.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754549AbYBYQiE (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:38:04 -0500 In-Reply-To: <47C2C09D.2010203-nz9JlX+3IF8@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 03:20:29PM +0200, Thanos Chatziathanassiou wrote: > Hi, > > I've been trying to replace kernel 2.4 in a web server mounting its Document Root via NFS with kernel 2.6 and faced a rather disturbing problem. > About 1/2 hour after starting, the server would stop serving requests though it seemed fine. > Earlier 2.6 kernels exhibited the ``do_vfs_lock: VFS is out of sync with lock manager!'' symptom, later (when this was changed to a dprintk()) just sat there. > No apparent error apart from apache compaining ``[error] server reached MaxClients setting, consider raising the MaxClients setting'', unable to serve any requests. > > This issue does not surface under 2.4, where everything works as expected. > I came across this > (http://blog.notreally.org/articles/2007/12/19/modifying-a-live-linux-kernel/) > where apparently they faced the same problem, but their solution (which > seemed a little crude) resulted in apache spitting ``There are no > available locks'' messages (or roughly this, translated from my regional > settings). > > Is there any solution to this or a way to get 2.4 behavior under 2.6 ? I'm a little confused--how do you know that the problem you face is the same as the one described on the blog above? Are you re-exporting NFS via Samba? --b.