From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 9 20:41:19 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEEF1065672 for ; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:41:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Received: from weak.local (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 187B08FC1F; Wed, 9 Apr 2008 20:41:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kris@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <47FD29ED.60001@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:41:17 +0200 From: Kris Kennaway User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (Macintosh/20080213) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Lastdrager References: <47FD18B9.8060305@pine.nl> In-Reply-To: <47FD18B9.8060305@pine.nl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rpc.lockd leaking memory on 6.3 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 20:41:19 -0000 Mark Lastdrager wrote: > Hi, > > Recently we updated our main NFS server to FreeBSD 6.3. This machine > serves about 10 netboot clients all running FreeBSD 6.2. Since the > upgrade we are having some issues with locking. We tried to avoid > running the lockd daemons at all but most software on the netboot > clients (Apache, Postfix) refuses to run without it. > > On the 6.3 server rpc.lockd leaks memory, somewhat less than 1 meg per > hour. This means that every few days we need to restart the daemon. This > is quite annoying because we need to stop/start rpc.lockd on both the > server and the clients in a controlled fashion. In most cases also the > daemons using locking need to be restarted. > > Is this a known issue? I could not find a PR for it. Maybe a workaround? I havent seen a report of this behaviour. > I found some recent posts on the -current list about a complete rewrite > of the locking mechanism, will this be ported to 6-STABLE in the future? Almost certainly not. Kris