Date: Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:22:57 +0200 From: Thierry Herbelot <Thierry.Herbelot@alcatel.fr> To: Scott Drassinower <scottd@cloud9.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 3.2-RELEASE and nfs not responding Message-ID: <3753ECC1.AD3A8860@telspace.alcatel.fr> References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906010937080.6853-100000@earl-grey.cloud9.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------A41EA668EF2298B73F5ED0E7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello, The last word I heard is that NFS over TCP is not reliable on the 3.x branch (there should be some messages in the archives of -Stable). There were fixes on the 4.x branch, but they are not back ported to 3.x (there have been too many changes inbetween). NFS over UDP should work OK, though. TfH Scott Drassinower wrote: > > We have two hosts that share directories via NFS. Host 1 has some > directories from Host 2 and vice versa. Both are running 3.2-RELEASE (and > previously ran 3.1 and 3.0) and from time to time, one server will > complain about the other not responding. > > Jun 1 07:54:39 russian-caravan /kernel: nfs server \ > earl-grey.cloud9.net:/home/users: not responding > > The other machine continues to be up and the mount point still works. > Once in a while nfs will say that the host is alive again, but usually > there will be several of the above error messages in a row with no mention > of the condition fixing itself. > > The machines have Intel EtherExpress Pro 100B cards (or Asus P2B boards > with the cards built-in) and are attached to each other on a Cisco > Catalyst 2900XL 10/100 switch. They speak 100/full duplex to the switch. > Currently -s,-i,-T,rw is being used to mount the directories, but the TCP > transport has not really cleared up or helped the problem. > > Other NFS issues between 2.2.7 and 3.2 have been cleared up, but this is > the most annoying (and only) problem that we've seen persist. I'm tempted > to toss the Cisco and try a different switch or just a dumb hub, but I'm > not entirely convinced it is the switch. > > Is there extra debugging that NFS can use when it runs into the condition > described above? Like perhaps what exactly makes it think the other host > is not responding? > > -- > Scott M. Drassinower scottd@cloud9.net > Cloud 9 Consulting, Inc. White Plains, NY > +1 914 696-4000 http://www.cloud9.net > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message --------------A41EA668EF2298B73F5ED0E7 Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="thierry.herbelot.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Thierry Herbelot Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="thierry.herbelot.vcf" begin:vcard n:Herbelot;Thierry tel;work:(+33) 1 46 52 47 23 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://perso.cybercable.fr/herbelot org:CIT Nanterre adr:;;;;;; version:2.1 email;internet:thierry.herbelot@alcatel.fr x-mozilla-cpt:;-22032 fn:Thierry Herbelot end:vcard --------------A41EA668EF2298B73F5ED0E7-- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3753ECC1.AD3A8860>