From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 14 08:51:25 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id IAA11081 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:51:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from bright.fx.genx.net (bright.fx.genx.net [206.64.4.154]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id IAA11076 for ; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 08:51:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by bright.fx.genx.net (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA98836; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:55:22 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from bright@hotjobs.com) X-Authentication-Warning: bright.fx.genx.net: bright owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 11:55:21 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein X-Sender: bright@bright.fx.genx.net To: spork cc: Bernd Walter , Kevin Day , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: NFS thoughts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, spork wrote: > On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Bernd Walter wrote: > > > I saw the same on my private hosts. > > Everythings the same to your case instead that I have a 100MBit FreeBSD Router > > between them. All lines are running Full-Duplex Point-to-Point. > > In my case I have a syslogentry telling me about a server down under some load > > and it took minutes till it says that the server is up again. > > It happend when using NFS3/TCP at this moment I'm using NFS2/UDP and it won't > > hang. > > Ditto. Two machines back-to-back 100Mbit full duplex. Private NFS > network. Migrating from 3/tcp to 2/udp seems to help alot. > > Can anyone else help confirm that in general 2/udp is the most dependable > way to run if you're not traversing anything slower than 100Mb? > > I also haven't seen the "I've mounted soft and intr, yet things still > hang" behaviour using version 2 and udp. Any consensus on that? why would you mount _both_ soft and intr? to me they seem mutually exclusive. 'intr' allows you to intrupt a hung NFS proc so that it recives a transient error on a filesystem call, the process will hang forever unless NFS comes back, or you ^C it 'soft' automates that with a timeout however signals won't work, but after some time the process will unhang and get an error on the filesystem call. Are you trying to get an auto-timeout like mount with that ability to ^C? generally intr is best, the idea of many processes timeing out on NFS mounts should the server crash, makes my stomach turn. btw, didn't the FreeBSD project pay someone big bucks to fix some of these problems? -Alfred > > Thanks, > > Charles > > > Another issue is that when using NFS with multihomed hosts the client ask on > > one IP address of the server and the server replies using another of his IPs, > > so the client is discarding the answers and still waiting. > > yuck. > > Charles To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message