From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 4 03:22:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E310616A4CE for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 03:22:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7211B43D3F for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 03:22:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D3E5B345BC; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:22:30 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCAF33C85 for ; Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:22:30 -0300 (ADT) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2004 00:22:30 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041004001747.J10913@ganymede.hub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: nfs server not responding / is alive again X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 03:22:32 -0000 I'm using an nfs mount to get at the underlying file system on a system that uses unionfs mounts ... instead of using nullfs, which, last time I used it over a year ago, caused the server to crash to no end ... But, as soon as there is any 'load', I'm getting a whack of: Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not responding Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive again Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not responding Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive again in /var/log/messages ... I'm running nfsd with the standard flags: nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" Is there something that I can do to reduce this problem? increase number of nfsd processes? force a tcp connection? The issue is more prevalent when I have >4 processes trying to read from the nfs mounts ... should there be one mount per process? the process(es) in question are rsync, if that helps ... they tend to be a bit more 'disk intensive' then most processes, which is why I thought of increasing -n ... Thanks ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664