Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2019 23:54:14 +0000 From: Richard P Mackerras <mack63richard@gmail.com> To: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> Cc: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, "stable@freebsd.org" <stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nfs lockd errors after NetApp software upgrade. Message-ID: <CAGfybS-oURbi8VOKpgMOpqCLM8NwoKWF9cg5368M_AXbevS7Pw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <06DD810E-3945-40AD-A1A2-578DF4FB1150@cs.huji.ac.il> References: <EBC4AD74-EC62-4C67-AB93-1AA91F662AAC@cs.huji.ac.il> <YQBPR0101MB1427411AFE335E869B9CF022DD530@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <0121E289-D2AE-44BA-ADAC-4814CAEE676F@cs.huji.ac.il> <CAGfybS-3Rvs57=oGFEfii_9a=aWxPr6dEq1Y1LqHbLXK1ZKmXA@mail.gmail.com> <06DD810E-3945-40AD-A1A2-578DF4FB1150@cs.huji.ac.il>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, I=E2=80=99m sure the 64 bit identifiers isn=E2=80=99t an issue. Your export= isn=E2=80=99t vast. I assume you have restarted statd and lockd on FreeBSD. I did search on the NetApp site earlier and nothing lept out then. Sorry, Richard On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 16:06, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: > > > On 18 Dec 2019, at 17:58, Richard P Mackerras <mack63richard@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Hi, > What software version is the NetApp using? > > the very latest :-), but will try and find out later. > > Is the exported volume big? > > about 500G, but many files > as far as I know, only accessed by one host running the web app - moodle. > > Is the vserver configured for 64bit identifiers > > what the issue here? > > ? > > If you enable NFS V4.0 or 4.1 other NFS clients using defaults might moun= t > NFSv4.x unexpectedly after a reboot so you need to watch that. > > Cheers > > Richard > (NetApp admin) > > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> wrote: > >> >> >> > On 18 Dec 2019, at 16:55, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: >> > >> > Daniel Braniss wrote: >> > >> >> Hi, >> >> The server with the problems is running FreeBSD 11.1 stable, it was >> working fine for >several months, >> >> but after a software upgrade of our NetAPP server it=E2=80=99s report= ing many >> lockd errors >and becomes catatonic, >> >> ... >> >> Dec 18 13:11:02 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd not >> responding >> >> Dec 18 13:11:45 moo-09 last message repeated 7 times >> >> Dec 18 13:12:55 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times >> >> Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 kernel: nfs server fr-06:/web/www: lockd is >> alive again >> >> Dec 18 13:13:10 moo-09 last message repeated 8 times >> >> Dec 18 13:13:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: >> Listen queue >overflow: 194 already in queue awaiting acceptance (1 >> occurrences) >> >> Dec 18 13:14:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: >> Listen queue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance (3957 >> occurrences) >> >> Dec 18 13:15:29 moo-09 kernel: sonewconn: pcb 0xfffff8004cc051d0: >> Listen queue >overflow: 193 already in queue awaiting acceptance =E2=80= =A6 >> > Seems like their software upgrade didn't improve handling of NLM RPCs? >> > Appears to be handling RPCs slowly and/or intermittently. Note that no >> one >> > tests it with IPv6, so at least make sure you are still using IPv4 for >> the mounts and >> > try and make sure IP broadcast works between client and Netapp. I thin= k >> the NLM >> > and NSM (rpc.statd) still use IP broadcast sometimes. >> > >> we are ipv4 - we have our own class c :-) >> > Maybe the network guys can suggest more w.r.t. why, but as I've stated >> before, >> > the NLM is a fundamentally broken protocol which was never published b= y >> Sun, >> > so I suggest you avoid using it if at all possible. >> well, at the moment the ball is on NetAPP court, and switching to NFSv4 >> at the moment is out of the question, it=E2=80=99s >> a production server used by several thousand students. >> >> > >> > - If the locks don't need to be seen by other clients, you can just us= e >> the "nolockd" >> > mount option. >> > or >> > - If locks need to be seen by other clients, try NFSv4 mounts. Netapp >> filers >> > should support NFSv4.1, which is a much better protocol that NFSv4.0= . >> > >> > Good luck with it, rick >> thanks >> danny >> >> > =E2=80=A6 >> > any ideas? >> > >> > thanks, >> > danny >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " >> freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org= " >> > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAGfybS-oURbi8VOKpgMOpqCLM8NwoKWF9cg5368M_AXbevS7Pw>