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 ?
Best Regards,
Thanos Chatziathanassiou
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.
J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> 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.
>
Indeed I am. But I am willing to convince you ;) What kind of debug info
would I need to collect to find out what really the problem is ?