Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2020 00:02:26 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-fs@freebsd.org" <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Major issues with nfsv4 Message-ID: <YTOPR0101MB097041BD590A3D3EF2A65557DDCA0@YTOPR0101MB0970.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <CABXB=RSyN%2Bo2yXcpmYw8sCSUUDhN-w28Vu9v_cCWa-2=pLZmHg@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABXB=RRB2nUk0pPDisBQPdicUA3ooHpg8QvBwjG_nFU4cHvCYw@mail.gmail.com> <YQXPR0101MB096849ADF24051F7479E565CDDCA0@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <CABXB=RSyN%2Bo2yXcpmYw8sCSUUDhN-w28Vu9v_cCWa-2=pLZmHg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J David wrote: [lots of stuff snipped] >Even so, there may be no workaround for the simultaneous mount limit >as long as reserved ports are required. Solving the negative >interaction with nullfs seems like the only long-term fix. > >What would be a good next step there? Well, if you have a test system you can break, doing # nfsstat -c -E once it is constipated could be useful. Look for the numbers under OpenOwner Opens LockOwner ... and see if any of them are getting very large. rick Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB097041BD590A3D3EF2A65557DDCA0>