From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: Regression: NFS locking hangs when statd not running. Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:26:43 +1000 Message-ID: <17725.27603.724326.910277@cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <17720.41873.549441.330938@cse.unsw.edu.au> <20061020124119.GE27351@suse.de> <76bd70e30610200600o2269db3ex2448982fb3e25d46@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Olaf Kirch , Takashi Iwai , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx1-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.91] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2-new.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GcB4A-0002Ya-Rt for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:26:54 -0700 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2] helo=mx1.suse.de) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1GcB4A-0001yJ-DS for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Oct 2006 18:26:56 -0700 To: "Chuck Lever" In-Reply-To: message from Chuck Lever on Friday October 20 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 On Friday October 20, chucklever@gmail.com wrote: > > Copying the intr flag makes sense. Neil, I'd like to see your patch > address this too. I'll see what I can do... but not for lockd requests. See previous mail > > The hard v. soft issue is more difficult. The semantic you are > requesting for the local statd is clearly "soft" and that's what you > say you always want. Otherwise copying the soft flag makes sense. > > Maybe you can re-use the soft flag and expose a way to set the soft > timeout for the mon client to get the exact behavior you want? It's not really about timeouts - or about 'soft'. It is about getting a definite 'no' answer (either from portmap or the network stack) and believing it, which is only safe when talking to a local service .... hmmm. Maybe that is also safe when doing the initial 'ping'. That is currently always 'soft' and presumably 'expects' the server to be there and functional so a 'no' reply could reasonably be believed there. Looking more at where and initial ping is used, I notice that the lockd client does a (soft) ping first. So if you have a hard mount, the first lock request can still fail due to an unresponsive server because the ping will fail... Shouldn't lockd clients be created with NO_PING ?? NeilBrown > > -- > "We who cut mere stones must always be envisioning cathedrals" > -- Quarry worker's creed A colleague as a message on his wall something like: If you want to build great boats, teach your workers to yearn for the wide open oceans. or something like that. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs