Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 13:26:23 +0000 From: NAGY Andreas <Andreas.Nagy@frequentis.com> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: =?iso-8859-1?Q?RE:_NFS_4.1_RECLAIM=5FCOMPLETE_FS=A0failed_error_in_combin?= =?iso-8859-1?Q?ation_with_ESXi_client?= Message-ID: <D890568E1D8DD044AA846C56245166780124AFBD21@vie196nt> In-Reply-To: <YQBPR0101MB1042479407CAA253674BBAEBDDDB0@YQBPR0101MB1042.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <c5c624de-42bb-45cf-8cf0-b25be56e5f58@frequentis.com> <YQBPR0101MB1042DEF0825996764CBCA829DDC40@YQBPR0101MB1042.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <D890568E1D8DD044AA846C56245166780124AFB90E@vie196nt> <YQBPR0101MB1042479407CAA253674BBAEBDDDB0@YQBPR0101MB1042.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks, got it working with your patch. So far I did not see any issue with the mount. Only in the vmkernel.log there are often following entrees: WARNING: NFS41: NFS41ValidateDelegation:608: Server returned improper reason for no delegation: 2 Actually I have only a single link between the ESXi host and the FreeBSD host, but as soon as I figure out what Is the right way to configure multiple paths for NFS I will do more testing. I need also to check out what can be tuned. I expected that writes to the NFS datastore will be slower than iSCSI but not as slow as it is now. andi -----Original Message----- From: Rick Macklem [mailto:rmacklem@uoguelph.ca] Sent: Sonntag, 4. März 2018 06:48 To: NAGY Andreas <Andreas.Nagy@frequentis.com>; freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: NFS 4.1 RECLAIM_COMPLETE FS failed error in combination with ESXi client NAGY Andreas wrote: >Hi and thanks! > >First time using/needing a patch could you give me a short advise how to use it >and for which version? The only difference with kernel versions will be the line#s. >So far I have made a fresh FreeBSD 11.1 RELEASE install as a VM on a >ESXi host >updated the system and did a svn checkout >http://svn.freebsd.org/base/release/11.1.0/ > >Then tried to apply the patch in /usr/src/sys via patch < >/tmp/reclaimcom2.patch > >Output was: >Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... >The text leading up to this was: >-------------------------- >|--- fs/nfsserver/nfs_nfsdserv.c.savrecl 2018-02-10 20:34:31.166445000 -0500 >|+++ fs/nfsserver/nfs_nfsdserv.c 2018-02-10 20:36:07.947490000 -0500 >-------------------------- >Patching file fs/nfsserver/nfs_nfsdserv.c using Plan A... >No such line 4225 in input file, ignoring Hunk #1 succeeded at 4019 >(offset -207 lines). >done Since it says "Hunk #1 succeeded...", I think it patched ok. However, you can check by looking at nfsrvd_reclaimcomplete() in sys/fs/nfsserver/nfs_nfsdserv.c. Before the patch it would look like: if (*tl == newnfs_true) nd->nd_repstat = NFSERR_NOTSUPP; else nd->nd_repstat = nfsrv_checkreclaimcomplete(nd); whereas after being patched, it will look like: nd->nd_repstat = nfsrv_checkreclaimcomplete(nd); if (*tl == newnfs_true) nd->nd_repstat = 0; rick [stuff snipped]
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D890568E1D8DD044AA846C56245166780124AFBD21>