Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:28404 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758503Ab2JKNXw (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:23:52 -0400 Message-ID: <5076C867.4050806@RedHat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:23:51 -0400 From: Steve Dickson MIME-Version: 1.0 To: VDR User CC: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Problem with rpcbind References: <5072B1E5.9060808@RedHat.com> <5074B53A.3030207@RedHat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/10/12 22:49, VDR User wrote: > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Steve Dickson wrote: >>>>> Per AnĂ­bal Salazar, I'm sending this to the nfs mailing list.. >>>>> >>>>> ========== >>>>> >>>>> Hi. I would like to know who I can talk to about having the rpcbind's >>>>> timeout value settable on the command line by the user. In many cases >>>>> the timeout is too long, requiring hackish solutions. It would be >>>>> best, and makes sense, that the user should be able to set the timeout >>>>> to something other than the default value if he chooses. If you could >>>>> direct me to the right person to talk to about it, I'd appreciate it. >>>> >>>> What timeout are you referring to? The one given to poll()? >>> >>> Hi. I guess so but not really sure. I'm talking about the timeout that >>> happens when rpcbind is waiting for a response. Sounds like poll() >>> could be it. We have an nfs server on .100 and the response happens >>> immediately. >>> >>> $ rpcinfo -t 192.168.1.100 nfs >>> program 100003 version 2 ready and waiting >>> program 100003 version 3 ready and waiting >>> program 100003 version 4 ready and waiting >>> >>> but there's no server on say .101 so if we run the same command on >>> that ip, the timeout takes a very long time. It's this timeout that >>> should be user-definable on the command line in my opinion. Any >>> thoughts about it? >> >> Hmm... I'm guess that is the 7min tcp connect time out cause by >> the -t option... Try using -u instead of -t... Basically using >> UDP instead of TCP... In general I would never recommend that >> but in this particular case it might help... > > Thanks for this suggestion. I tried with -u but the timeout still > takes at least 1 min. Is it not feasible to have a command line > timeout where users can set it to something appropriate for their > needs? For example, in our case we only need about 5 seconds at most. hmm... when I do a "rpcinfo -t nfs" to a machine that does not have a daemon listening I immediately get: rpcinfo: RPC: Port mapper failure - Unable to receive: errno 111 (Connection refused) program 100003 is not available So I not seeing here this hang is coming from... steved.