From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: lockd: couldn't create RPC handle for (host) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 00:32:57 -0500 Message-ID: <1134797577.20929.2.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <20051216205536.GA20497@tau.solarneutrino.net> <1134776945.7952.4.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20051216235841.GA20539@tau.solarneutrino.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1EnUh5-0003vF-GP for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:33:19 -0800 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1EnUh4-0004HV-Vx for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 21:33:19 -0800 To: Ryan Richter In-Reply-To: <20051216235841.GA20539@tau.solarneutrino.net> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net 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: On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 18:58 -0500, Ryan Richter wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 06:49:05PM -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Fri, 2005-12-16 at 15:55 -0500, Ryan Richter wrote: > > > Hi, nfs locking stopped working on my file server running 2.6.15-rc5 > > > today. All clients that try locking operations hang, and I get the > > > message from the server: > > > > > > lockd: couldn't create RPC handle for w.x.y.z > > > > Points either to a client which is not responding to callbacks, or an > > OOM situation on the server. > > > > Does 'rpcinfo -u w.x.y.z 100021' work from the server? > > No. > > $ rpcinfo -u jacquere 100021 > rpcinfo: RPC: Timed out > program 100021 version 0 is not available > zsh: exit 1 rpcinfo -u jacquere 100021 > > So I see now lockd is not present on the client. But... > > $ rpcinfo -p jacquere > program vers proto port > 100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper > 100000 2 udp 111 portmapper > 100021 1 udp 32768 nlockmgr > 100021 3 udp 32768 nlockmgr > 100021 4 udp 32768 nlockmgr > 100024 1 udp 867 status > 100024 1 tcp 870 status > > So what does that mean? Looks to me as if port 111 is pingable (since you can talk to the portmapper), but port 32768 is not. Are you using port filtering or firewalling anywhere (on the client, server, or switches)? Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs