From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 15 15:07:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AE3C16A4CE for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:07:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70B943D31 for ; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 15:07:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) id i0FN7AUl031950; Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:07:10 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:07:10 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Eric van Gyzen Message-ID: <20040115230708.GB53031@dan.emsphone.com> References: <200401151516.03897.vangyzen@stat.duke.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200401151516.03897.vangyzen@stat.duke.edu> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rpc.lockd resource starvation X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 23:07:17 -0000 In the last episode (Jan 15), Eric van Gyzen said: > I'm running 5.1-RELEASE on my NFS server and my ~50 NFS clients. > Over a period of a few weeks, the rpc.lockd daemon on the NFS server > will consume all the privileged udp ports and start using > high-numbered ports. With no available privileged udp ports, the > server is unable to mount NFS shares from other machines. (There are > probably several other unfortunate consequences of which I am not yet > aware...) Is this behavior expected from rpc.lockd, or might it be a > bug (or just me breaking my systems again)? wow I think you just told me why my two busiest NFS servers had to be rebooted a few months ago (one with 440 days of uptime :( ). Does the mount fail with "mount: Can't assign requested address"? If so, it also happens on 4.x servers. Currently, they have 214 and 109 open reserved ports (after 102 and 73 days uptime, respectively), and I'm betting there are no more than 5 files actually locked on either system. I wonder if it's just not closing sockets when it's done with them? -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com