From: Steve Dickson Subject: Re: NFS server not responding Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 14:11:37 -0500 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3FCF86E9.2030300@RedHat.com> References: <3FCF70D9.1010808@RedHat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070407040104060909060006" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.11] helo=sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARysC-0004j7-JU for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:10:48 -0800 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]) by sc8-sf-mx1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1ARysC-0004em-3u for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 04 Dec 2003 11:10:48 -0800 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4JAl218650 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:10:47 -0500 Received: from lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (lacrosse.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.154]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4JAk206144 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:10:46 -0500 Received: from RedHat.com (dickson.boston.redhat.com [172.16.65.20]) by lacrosse.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id hB4JAk325567 for ; Thu, 4 Dec 2003 14:10:46 -0500 To: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net In-Reply-To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070407040104060909060006 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Trond Myklebust wrote: >>>>>>" " == Steve Dickson writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> > > > linux-2.4.20-nfs-ia64-EIO.patch - increase RPC_RTO_MIN to > > HZ/30 > >Err.. That's a decrease... > > Well... it was in increase at the time I posted the patch. If remember correctly... there was actually some discussion that 1/30th of a second was a bit too long... >You are setting the minimum timeout value at 1/30th of a second >instead of 1/10th of a second. > > Right... I did miss this "minor" detail when I did the port.... >This might indeed explain why people are seeing an increase in resends >and 'server not responding' messages. > > Most definitely... Here is the patch that should take care of the problem... SteveD. --------------070407040104060909060006 Content-Type: text/plain; name="linux-2.4.33-nfs-rtomin.patch" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline; filename="linux-2.4.33-nfs-rtomin.patch" --- linux-2.4.22/net/sunrpc/timer.c.org 2003-12-04 10:47:01.000000000 -0500 +++ linux-2.4.22/net/sunrpc/timer.c 2003-12-04 13:46:01.000000000 -0500 @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ #define RPC_RTO_MAX (60*HZ) #define RPC_RTO_INIT (HZ/5) -#define RPC_RTO_MIN (HZ/30) +#define RPC_RTO_MIN (HZ/10) void rpc_init_rtt(struct rpc_rtt *rt, long timeo) --------------070407040104060909060006-- ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive? Does it help you create better code? SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help YOU! Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/ _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs