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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
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!home | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YTOPR0101MB097041BD590A3D3EF2A65557DDCA0>