From: "Michael Han" Subject: default sunrpc.min_resvport Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:16:27 -0700 Message-ID: <168996D6C4DFA945B032B63C0DEAA6BF0421E687@EXCHANGE1.postini.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6I0i-0006er-By for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 19:23:33 -0700 Received: from externalmx-1.sourceforge.net ([12.152.184.25]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1G64ha-0001al-V3 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 05:10:58 -0700 Received: from exprod8og50.obsmtp.com ([64.18.3.82]) by externalmx-1.sourceforge.net with smtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.41) id 1G60I7-0007ec-OT for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 00:28:20 -0700 Received: from exchsrvr3.postini.com (exchsrvr3.postini.com [172.16.0.56]) by thor.postinicorp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE62F178B49 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:16:31 -0700 (PDT) To: List-Id: "Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net I'm not sure if this has surfaced before for discussion (searching hasn't shown me any relevant threads), but the 2.6 kernel's new implementation of xprt_bindresvport can conflict with port 664 on IPMI-enabled hosts with a BMC. IPMI uses both ports 623 and 664 for communications, and several implementations appear to intercept all traffic for these ports and not permit them to pass to the standard packet driver (tcpdump in promiscuous mode shows no packets coming in). I know that in the discussions back in 2005/02 and 2005/07 of the patch that implements the new privileged port binding for NFS mount (I can't tell whose patch it is, perhaps Olaf Kirch's?), Charles Lever noted that the new sunrpc.min_resvport of 650 avoids conflicts with port 623. Is it worth increasing this default to 665 to avoid this port as well? If not, I just wanted to get this information onto the list, since I searched pretty heavily while researching the intermittent hangs I've been getting with my NFS mounts before finally nailing this to my IPMI BMCs. Manually setting sunrpc.min_resvport to 700 has stabilized NFS on my boxes. Thanks. Michael Han mhan@postini.com ----------------------------------------------------------- This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. This information is intended to be read only by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are on notice that any review, disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete or destroy any copy of this message. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs