From owner-freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Sat Dec 21 17:32:19 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 3716A1D8AF0 for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:32:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from CAN01-QB1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr660077.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.66.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mail.protection.outlook.com", Issuer "GlobalSign Organization Validation CA - SHA256 - G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47gCNd6xFQz4Swf for ; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:32:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=SG8yW+mqBCqr/uEccUQZlTwFeN13NN90RtOJKkqfaloz5Q6A1MT2lLMTogfDAbgtINB5mz6T4wGeL+jtAOXad2ptpXhlV3F1uZQVOd+n1pVytZfjSDP1AZhgHTdIPStY8/uRK4UlGykhzoVgCwwr189fSfvg722mq+c/PwtF2DHoMbe2pyXvsq6C0OcxN7llOzc44jq+TYUjfZ+Tz9vR83kh4XD1fimk5LfStphy3VbWM8ikQF0toE8lXHXt3N3YxA2tH9SfQqrjf9USYgBVE2/2Q6uL8qFsA+bV3OWMOcLtn5ZiRQxu3yu8pbk6xHY4GnnQ/nkZ9qygjWOl+oM5HA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hke4OU7Fvr9JZyzyscup2t+HULyvo6jYKOpP4USVOQs=; b=ll5SF5dRJPk9inR0P1O8qCwbWQ5Qj4WX25NOINo46bpaxlrX0IL/K7IJOGWGTcVJAC7VBuHvMVuBpp0AoDaCCcW+kHIG/J93AepTEeas0M0KVSkHD7WVKUXTkPqpoLapICAPau30qINN4JcVHA+Fy8WQ46EXbwJ7MX5Uta6OtK5PaIHwFao3n0Jgy7Bh+9GQ+Iahhksvn29KVrJMQTdlURJTaDHVwv72pOoOVJV9SyJEjghuqO8YhkDqOzIFE9Z3KSoHriAf1XrBQCxF5Ea3SnLRHCWg/5ecISjzqIU81zWLxpUBx1TvmT6uU9Tl9BOJiZ0nJTvMBo1nVLsN4X0z+w== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uoguelph.ca; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=uoguelph.ca; dkim=pass header.d=uoguelph.ca; arc=none Received: from YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.69.153) by YQBPR0101MB1012.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM (52.132.66.147) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2559.15; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:32:16 +0000 Received: from YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::9504:a50d:ee12:b75]) by YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM ([fe80::9504:a50d:ee12:b75%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2538.023; Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:32:15 +0000 From: Rick Macklem To: Daniel Braniss CC: Adam McDougall , "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: nfs lockd errors after NetApp software upgrade. Thread-Topic: nfs lockd errors after NetApp software upgrade. Thread-Index: AQHVtawq+ga5QLcdVkqBDG/GW9zFg6e/+Am+gAARTACAAANHAIAAi7Y3gACf34CAAEVO6IAABk4AgADWGACAAO1eZYAA7uGAgACmPw0= Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 17:32:15 +0000 Message-ID: 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> , <8A78F67B-C244-45CF-B9BF-D7062669B33B@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <8A78F67B-C244-45CF-B9BF-D7062669B33B@cs.huji.ac.il> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-publictraffictype: Email x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: a1c7e0ec-816c-4713-b9a1-08d7863bb8da x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: YQBPR0101MB1012: x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:5236; x-forefront-prvs: 0258E7CCD4 x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(396003)(39860400002)(346002)(366004)(376002)(136003)(189003)(199004)(86362001)(33656002)(66446008)(66476007)(64756008)(66556008)(71200400001)(478600001)(66946007)(8936002)(52536014)(966005)(5660300002)(76116006)(6916009)(54906003)(2906002)(4326008)(186003)(55016002)(6506007)(81166006)(9686003)(53546011)(316002)(7696005)(786003)(8676002)(81156014); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:YQBPR0101MB1012; H:YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: uoguelph.ca does not designate permitted sender hosts) x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1 x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: B2Wwqf1FhMUVRi+wsZvqVRMdhj3qHiUza4odjCGvrroRw/MBKH2I7M0Vo4zN7hs4e6fmodM3r3K2+Y24jvRTf/kOgegO/fxCmcOs5hFBxzt1f6k7Nw8cQDBYcQmaLcbp5RDcRlKjfDkXb3LDKH8lSQ9VxEKln58Fz2274zN7XWgIeUuzTGR/ixuj1NfnVjQ7h2jjaHnCMAU/CFWNGzF8I3KFOZujEBow+jFJnHLQYZ8LJJrCeOAzgtQBbjLF/81jfiJFckwzKpiQyBxGxF3OremnqV9U9oWfErnUjg80E9gIpEj4sCo4nKJArARkrcHtk+3cwdjYAUZZUsmBDF/Gxc1Rn7X/HvEsFgN67zQxYSI1iLhnOFBN5LTbH3EazibUynLg58vAcA5Q4xlta0uXX1Ig0QQ60gmDU1nmadEK5gxife/DDz2EwoctOmh06PpI7MGgwnS3qI65hjalCPZDXZY0CGsG0b6DpTo0Er0Vpwc= x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: uoguelph.ca X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a1c7e0ec-816c-4713-b9a1-08d7863bb8da X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Dec 2019 17:32:15.7150 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: be62a12b-2cad-49a1-a5fa-85f4f3156a7d X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: Njl4Kw1Vs428k5da44LKrNH6FisoTnTvxhkUUOSDvU2yJEBlG+rcxQU5vijlYMshotn2jecMZrBESzbVqvqDHg== X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: YQBPR0101MB1012 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47gCNd6xFQz4Swf X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of rmacklem@uoguelph.ca designates 40.107.66.77 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=rmacklem@uoguelph.ca X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.66 / 15.00]; TO_DN_EQ_ADDR_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:40.107.0.0/16]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[uoguelph.ca]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[77.66.107.40.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.3.0]; IP_SCORE(-1.36)[ipnet: 40.64.0.0/10(-3.84), asn: 8075(-2.92), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:8075, ipnet:40.64.0.0/10, country:US]; ARC_ALLOW(-1.00)[i=1] 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 17:32:19 -0000 Daniel Braniss wrote:=0A= >>On 20 Dec 2019, at 19:19, Rick Macklem >>> wrote:=0A= >>=0A= >>Adam McDougall wrote:=0A= >>>Try changing bool_t do_tcp =3D FALSE; to TRUE in=0A= >>>/usr/src/sys/nlm/nlm_prot_impl.c, recompile the kernel and try again. I= =0A= >>>think this makes it match Linux client behavior. I suspect I ran into=0A= >>>the same issue as you. I do think I used nolockd is a workaround=0A= >>>temporarily. I can provide some more details if it works.=0A= >>If this fixes the problem, please let me know.=0A= >>=0A= >>I'm not sure I'd want to change the default, since it might break things = for=0A= >>others, but I can definitely make it a tunable, so that people don't need= to=0A= >>recompile a kernel to deal with it.=0A= >>=0A= >>=0A= >great! I was just about to see how it can be done(tunable) but need to che= ck if it can >be done=0A= >at any time, or just at boot time.=0A= I haven't looked at the code, but I suspect changing it on the fly could ca= use problems,=0A= so I am inclined to make it a tunable (boot time only).=0A= =0A= >thanks.=0A= >btw, currently, from several hours of analysing the traffic, it seems that= nlm is UDP.=0A= I assume that means you haven't tried flipping it to TCP yet.=0A= =0A= Please let us know how it goes, rick=0A= =0A= danny=0A= =0A= =0A= rick=0A= =0A= On 12/19/19 9:21 AM, Daniel Braniss wrote:=0A= =0A= =0A= On 19 Dec 2019, at 16:09, Rick Macklem > wrote:=0A= =0A= Daniel Braniss wrote:=0A= [stuff snipped]=0A= all mounts are nfsv3/tcp=0A= This doesn't affect what the NLM code (rpc.lockd) uses. I honestly don't kn= ow when=0A= the NLM uses tcp vs udp. I think rpc.statd still uses IP broadcast at times= .=0A= can the replay cache have any influence here? I tend to remember way back i= ssues=0A= with it,=0A= =0A= To me, it looks like a network configuration issue.=0A= that was/is my gut feelings too, but, as far as we can tell, nothing has ch= anged in the network infrastructure,=0A= the problems appeared after the NetAPP=92s software was updated, it was wor= king fine till then.=0A= =0A= the problems are also happening on freebsd 12.1=0A= =0A= You could capture packets (maybe when a client first starts rpc.statd and r= pc.lockd)=0A= and then look at them in wireshark. I'd disable statup of rpc.lockd and rpc= .statd=0A= at boot for a test client and then run something like:=0A= # tcpdump -s 0 -s out.pcap host =0A= - and then start rpc.statd and rpc.lockd=0A= Then I'd look at out.pcap in wireshark (much better at decoding this stuff = than=0A= tcpdump). I'd look for things like different reply IP addresses from the Ne= tapp,=0A= which might confuse this tired old NLM protocol Sun devised in the mid-1980= s.=0A= =0A= it=92s going to be an interesting week end :-(=0A= =0A= the error is also appearing on freebsd-11.2-stable, I=92m now checking if i= t=92s also=0A= happening on 12.1=0A= btw, the NetApp version is 9.3P17=0A= Yes. I wasn't the author of the NSM and NLM code (long ago I refused to eve= n=0A= try to implement it, because I knew the protocol was badly broken) and I av= oid=0A= fiddling with. As such, it won't have change much since around FreeBSD7.=0A= and we haven=92t had any issues with it for years, so you must have done so= mething good=0A= =0A= cheers,=0A= danny=0A= =0A= =0A= rick=0A= =0A= cheers,=0A= danny=0A= =0A= rick=0A= =0A= Cheers=0A= =0A= Richard=0A= (NetApp admin)=0A= =0A= On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Daniel Braniss > wrote:=0A= =0A= =0A= On 18 Dec 2019, at 16:55, Rick Macklem > wrote:=0A= =0A= Daniel Braniss wrote:=0A= =0A= Hi,=0A= The server with the problems is running FreeBSD 11.1 stable, it was working= fine for >several months,=0A= but after a software upgrade of our NetAPP server it=92s reporting many loc= kd errors >and becomes catatonic,=0A= ...=0A= Dec 18 13:11:02 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd not respond= ing=0A= Dec 18 13:11:45 moo-09 last message repeated 7 times=0A= Dec 18 13:12:55 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times=0A= Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd is alive ag= ain=0A= Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times=0A= Dec 18 13:13:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: Listen qu= eue >overflow: 194 already in queue awaiting acceptance (1 occurrences)=0A= Dec 18 13:14:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: Listen qu= eue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance (3957 occurrences)= =0A= Dec 18 13:15:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: Listen qu= eue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance =85=0A= Seems like their software upgrade didn't improve handling of NLM RPCs?=0A= Appears to be handling RPCs slowly and/or intermittently. Note that no one= =0A= tests it with IPv6, so at least make sure you are still using IPv4 for the = mounts and=0A= try and make sure IP broadcast works between client and Netapp. I think the= NLM=0A= and NSM (rpc.statd) still use IP broadcast sometimes.=0A= =0A= we are ipv4 - we have our own class c :-)=0A= Maybe the network guys can suggest more w.r.t. why, but as I've stated befo= re,=0A= the NLM is a fundamentally broken protocol which was never published by Sun= ,=0A= so I suggest you avoid using it if at all possible.=0A= well, at the moment the ball is on NetAPP court, and switching to NFSv4 at = the moment is out of the question, it=92s=0A= a production server used by several thousand students.=0A= =0A= =0A= - If the locks don't need to be seen by other clients, you can just use the= "nolockd"=0A= mount option.=0A= or=0A= - If locks need to be seen by other clients, try NFSv4 mounts. Netapp filer= s=0A= should support NFSv4.1, which is a much better protocol that NFSv4.0.=0A= =0A= Good luck with it, rick=0A= thanks=0A= danny=0A= =0A= =85=0A= any ideas?=0A= =0A= thanks,=0A= danny=0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list=0A= https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable=0A= To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list=0A= https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable=0A= To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A= =0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list= =0A= https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable=0A= To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"= =0A= =0A= =0A= _______________________________________________=0A= freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list= =0A= https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable=0A= To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A= _______________________________________________=0A= freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list= =0A= https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable=0A= To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"=0A= =0A=