From: Hans-Peter Jansen Subject: Re: nfs errors clutter up logs after 2.4.20 -> 2.4.22-pre10 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:05:43 +0200 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <200309051305.43484.hpj@urpla.net> References: <200308231404.34087.hpj@urpla.net> <200308262328.09975.hpj@urpla.net> <200308271250.09723.hpj@urpla.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Cipher TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19vEPU-0007LO-00 for ; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:05:48 -0700 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.184]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 19vEPT-0000b0-Ne for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 05 Sep 2003 04:05:47 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <200308271250.09723.hpj@urpla.net> 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: Hi Trond, I've tried to #define RPC_RTO_MIN (HZ/8) also, but this doesn't change the picture. Here are a few more random data points (sorry for the large holes, I cannot keep the pace of you guys _all_ the time ;-): With 2.4.20 and before, I noticed this message only when taking down the server, which is expected. While betatesting the current kernel of upcoming SuSE 9.0 (2.4.21-59), prepared for diskless in my 8.2 env. yesterday, it doesn't show this problem, too. It's a heavily tweaked 2.4.21 with many .22 fixes included. It happens for me with 2.4.22-pre10, so it smells like some changes in (late) 2.4.22 triggers it. Pete On Wednesday 27 August 2003 12:50, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote: > Hi Trond, > > unfortunately, it hasn't fixed the phenomenon completely, but now > it takes much longer to trigger it. After rebuilding and restarting > tonight at 00:52, the first occurence was at 09:57, the next ones > at 10:00 and 10:05. > > Do you think, it's worth playing with bigger RPC_RTO_MIN values? > > Cheers, > Pete ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs