From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Dec 21 07:32:12 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A61861CA315 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:32:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) Received: from kabab.cs.huji.ac.il (kabab.cs.huji.ac.il [132.65.116.210]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47fy4C1YZzz3yc1 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:32:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danny@cs.huji.ac.il) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cs.huji.ac.il; s=57791128; h=References:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Date:Subject:Mime-Version:Content-Type:Message-Id:From; bh=PYsCHz9/hVNGO4IBklUJOVUriTIX/rq5baeVj7IIAFw=; b=bKoufoifMfHtAa7je020pdtJFAyL3CCUjZP/LMWfRYChxzm2szziewQvPe7/18Z3WseSShSVaSSaajMTsA9XtfOy+ypS3Vji8HP1ISEiFKvSUD+27Vbc0x/Ps1hNUxcUnt2tUm//oPHXoOosPNeU3xFSUBhAq3E4MT26Qj7Sg0myFsHz91U9lCusbTv3OOgGMQw1hszjsSSRCLSq3HHWVwG8PfZxe8B8oJB7QNRA6fv/qO/ctFr3MWw8mx8NVaNXKix+dJxFnRBTCTzyUNgHo43ll7LFHZyV/CiCc0ChqhSZ7W7s0Ea15we2rmCiYvzyiswcIjql0C/NRYSqIvBhtA==; Received: from macmini.bk.cs.huji.ac.il ([132.65.179.19]) by kabab.cs.huji.ac.il with esmtp id 1iiZF7-000HCt-Og; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 09:32:05 +0200 From: Daniel Braniss Message-Id: <8A78F67B-C244-45CF-B9BF-D7062669B33B@cs.huji.ac.il> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.0 \(3608.40.2.2.4\)) Subject: Re: nfs lockd errors after NetApp software upgrade. Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 09:32:05 +0200 In-Reply-To: Cc: Adam McDougall , "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" To: Rick Macklem References: <0121E289-D2AE-44BA-ADAC-4814CAEE676F@cs.huji.ac.il> <854B6E5A-C6BC-44B3-A656-FC9B8EF19881@cs.huji.ac.il> <8770BD0D-4B72-431A-B4F5-A29D4DBA03B1@cs.huji.ac.il> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.40.2.2.4) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47fy4C1YZzz3yc1 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=cs.huji.ac.il header.s=57791128 header.b=bKoufoif; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=huji.ac.il; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of danny@cs.huji.ac.il has no SPF policy when checking 132.65.116.210) smtp.mailfrom=danny@cs.huji.ac.il X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.86 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[cs.huji.ac.il:s=57791128]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; IP_SCORE(-1.56)[ip: (-3.85), ipnet: 132.64.0.0/13(-2.23), asn: 378(-1.79), country: IL(0.05)]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[cs.huji.ac.il:+]; DMARC_POLICY_ALLOW(-0.50)[huji.ac.il,none]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[210.116.65.132.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.10.0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:378, ipnet:132.64.0.0/13, country:IL]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 07:32:12 -0000 > On 20 Dec 2019, at 19:19, Rick Macklem wrote: >=20 > Adam McDougall wrote: >> Try changing bool_t do_tcp =3D FALSE; to TRUE in >> /usr/src/sys/nlm/nlm_prot_impl.c, recompile the kernel and try again. = I >> think this makes it match Linux client behavior. I suspect I ran into >> the same issue as you. I do think I used nolockd is a workaround >> temporarily. I can provide some more details if it works. > If this fixes the problem, please let me know. >=20 > I'm not sure I'd want to change the default, since it might break = things for > others, but I can definitely make it a tunable, so that people don't = need to > recompile a kernel to deal with it. >=20 great! I was just about to see how it can be done(tunable) but need to = check if it can be done at any time, or just at boot time. thanks. btw, currently, from several hours of analysing the traffic, it seems = that nlm is UDP. danny > rick >=20 > On 12/19/19 9:21 AM, Daniel Braniss wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >>> On 19 Dec 2019, at 16:09, Rick Macklem wrote: >>>=20 >>> Daniel Braniss wrote: >>> [stuff snipped] >>>> all mounts are nfsv3/tcp >>> This doesn't affect what the NLM code (rpc.lockd) uses. I honestly = don't know when >>> the NLM uses tcp vs udp. I think rpc.statd still uses IP broadcast = at times. >> can the replay cache have any influence here? I tend to remember way = back issues >> with it, >>>=20 >>> To me, it looks like a network configuration issue. >> that was/is my gut feelings too, but, as far as we can tell, nothing = has changed in the network infrastructure, >> the problems appeared after the NetAPP=E2=80=99s software was = updated, it was working fine till then. >>=20 >> the problems are also happening on freebsd 12.1 >>=20 >>> You could capture packets (maybe when a client first starts = rpc.statd and rpc.lockd) >>> and then look at them in wireshark. I'd disable statup of rpc.lockd = and rpc.statd >>> at boot for a test client and then run something like: >>> # tcpdump -s 0 -s out.pcap host >>> - and then start rpc.statd and rpc.lockd >>> Then I'd look at out.pcap in wireshark (much better at decoding this = stuff than >>> tcpdump). I'd look for things like different reply IP addresses from = the Netapp, >>> which might confuse this tired old NLM protocol Sun devised in the = mid-1980s. >>>=20 >> it=E2=80=99s going to be an interesting week end :-( >>=20 >>>> the error is also appearing on freebsd-11.2-stable, I=E2=80=99m now = checking if it=E2=80=99s also >>>> happening on 12.1 >>>> btw, the NetApp version is 9.3P17 >>> Yes. I wasn't the author of the NSM and NLM code (long ago I refused = to even >>> try to implement it, because I knew the protocol was badly broken) = and I avoid >>> fiddling with. As such, it won't have change much since around = FreeBSD7. >> and we haven=E2=80=99t had any issues with it for years, so you must = have done something good >>=20 >> cheers, >> danny >>=20 >>>=20 >>> rick >>>=20 >>> cheers, >>> danny >>>=20 >>>> rick >>>>=20 >>>> Cheers >>>>=20 >>>> Richard >>>> (NetApp admin) >>>>=20 >>>> On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Daniel Braniss = > wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>>> On 18 Dec 2019, at 16:55, Rick Macklem = > wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>> Daniel Braniss wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> The server with the problems is running FreeBSD 11.1 stable, it = was working fine for >several months, >>>>>> but after a software upgrade of our NetAPP server it=E2=80=99s = reporting many lockd errors >and becomes catatonic, >>>>>> ... >>>>>> Dec 18 13:11:02 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd = not responding >>>>>> Dec 18 13:11:45 moo-09 last message repeated 7 times >>>>>> Dec 18 13:12:55 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times >>>>>> Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd = is alive again >>>>>> Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times >>>>>> Dec 18 13:13:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: = Listen queue >overflow: 194 already in queue awaiting acceptance (1 = occurrences) >>>>>> Dec 18 13:14:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: = Listen queue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance (3957 = occurrences) >>>>>> Dec 18 13:15:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: = Listen queue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance =E2=80=A6= >>>>> Seems like their software upgrade didn't improve handling of NLM = RPCs? >>>>> Appears to be handling RPCs slowly and/or intermittently. Note = that no one >>>>> tests it with IPv6, so at least make sure you are still using IPv4 = for the mounts and >>>>> try and make sure IP broadcast works between client and Netapp. I = think the NLM >>>>> and NSM (rpc.statd) still use IP broadcast sometimes. >>>>>=20 >>>> we are ipv4 - we have our own class c :-) >>>>> Maybe the network guys can suggest more w.r.t. why, but as I've = stated before, >>>>> the NLM is a fundamentally broken protocol which was never = published by Sun, >>>>> so I suggest you avoid using it if at all possible. >>>> well, at the moment the ball is on NetAPP court, and switching to = NFSv4 at the moment is out of the question, it=E2=80=99s >>>> a production server used by several thousand students. >>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> - If the locks don't need to be seen by other clients, you can = just use the "nolockd" >>>>> mount option. >>>>> or >>>>> - If locks need to be seen by other clients, try NFSv4 mounts. = Netapp filers >>>>> should support NFSv4.1, which is a much better protocol that = NFSv4.0. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Good luck with it, rick >>>> thanks >>>> danny >>>>=20 >>>>> =E2=80=A6 >>>>> any ideas? >>>>>=20 >>>>> thanks, >>>>> danny >>>>>=20 >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org = mailing list >>>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>>=20 >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org = mailing list >>>> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>>=20 >>=20 >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing = list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable = > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org = "