From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: SM_UNMON again -> kernel Date: 14 Jul 2003 10:47:52 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: References: <20030711061615.GA1924@quasar.nro.au.com> <20030713042557.GA12903@quasar.nro.au.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Trond Myklebust , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19bz0G-0002ly-00 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 01:48:12 -0700 To: Lawrence Ong In-Reply-To: <20030713042557.GA12903@quasar.nro.au.com> Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: >>>>> " " == Lawrence Ong writes: > Anyhow, it shows that the kernel is still continually sending > out unmonitor packets to statd at regular intervals. What the? > Why is this happening? What's wrong with that: I presume you *are* releasing locks every now and then? There's no point in monitoring a server on which you're not holding any locks. Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs