From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 13 14:17:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D38237B401; Tue, 13 May 2003 14:17:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3429843F3F; Tue, 13 May 2003 14:17:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h4DLGjOn019174; Tue, 13 May 2003 17:16:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)h4DLGjFj019171; Tue, 13 May 2003 17:16:45 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 17:16:45 -0400 (EDT) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: "Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr." In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: Don Lewis cc: alfred@FreeBSD.org cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: rpc.lockd spinning; much breakage X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 21:17:07 -0000 On Tue, 13 May 2003, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: > On Tue, 13 May 2003, Robert Watson wrote: > > > May 13 14:31:31 crash1 rpc.lockd: nlm_lock_res from 192.168.50.1 > > May 13 14:31:33 crash1 rpc.lockd: nlm_lock_res from 192.168.50.1 > > May 13 14:31:42 crash1 rpc.lockd: nlm_granted_msg from 192.168.50.1 > > May 13 14:31:42 crash1 rpc.lockd: nlm_unlock_res from 192.168.50.1 > > May 13 14:31:42 crash1 rpc.lockd: process 933: No such process > > May 13 14:31:53 crash1 rpc.lockd: nlm_lock_res from 192.168.50.1 > > Why is everything logging nlm_blahblahblah instead of nlm4_blahblahblah? > This normally implies that you are running NFSv2. Is that correct? I believe our diskless environment mounts using NFSv2 only, so my root file system on this box uses NFSv2. Recompiling nfs_diskless.c to use the NFSv3 mount flag results in a panic due to getting EPROTONOSUPPORT when looking for init(8), so I can only assume that's a bad idea. :-) Could be because the NFS handle for the root is passed from the boot loader as an NFSv2 handle, which probably wouldn't happify NFSv3. I'll try doing the tests on NFSv3 file systems this evening. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories