Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 17 Mar 2021 23:48:40 +0100
From:      Peter Eriksson <pen@lysator.liu.se>
To:        Jason Breitman <jbreitman@tildenparkcapital.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: NFS Mount Hangs
Message-ID:  <3CF50285-AD1F-4D0C-B298-0B6263B4AB45@lysator.liu.se>
In-Reply-To: <789BCFA9-D6BC-4C5A-AEA2-E6F7C6E26CB5@tildenparkcapital.com>
References:  <C643BB9C-6B61-4DAC-8CF9-CE04EA7292D0@tildenparkcapital.com> <3750001D-3F1C-4D9A-A9D9-98BCA6CA65A4@tildenparkcapital.com> <33693DE3-7FF8-4FAB-9A75-75576B88A566@tildenparkcapital.com> <YQXPR0101MB0968DC18E00833DE2969C636DD6A9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <CAOtMX2gQFMWbGKBzLcPW4zOBpQ3YR5=9DRpTyTDi2SC%2BhE8Ehw@mail.gmail.com> <YQXPR0101MB09681291684FC684A3319D2ADD6A9@YQXPR0101MB0968.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <789BCFA9-D6BC-4C5A-AEA2-E6F7C6E26CB5@tildenparkcapital.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
CLOSE_WAIT on the server side usually indicates that the kernel has sent =
the ACK to the clients FIN (start of a shutdown) packet but hasn=E2=80=99t=
 sent it=E2=80=99s own FIN packet - something that usually happens when =
the server has read all data queued up from the client and taken what =
actions it need to shutdown down it=E2=80=99s service=E2=80=A6

Here=E2=80=99s a fine ASCII art. Probably needs to be viewed using a =
monospaced font :-)

Client
> ESTABLISHED --> FIN-WAIT-1   +-----> FIN-WAIT-2   +-----> TIME-WAIT =
---> CLOSED
>                     :        ^                    ^           :
>                 FIN :        : ACK            FIN :       ACK :
>                     v        :                    :           v
> ESTABLISHED         +--> CLOSE-WAIT --....---> LAST-ACK       =
+--------> CLOSED
Server


TSO/LRO and/or =E2=80=9Cintelligence=E2=80=9D in some smart network =
cards can cause all kinds of interesting bugs. What ethernet cards are =
you using?
(TSO/LRO seems to be working better these days for our Intel X710 cards, =
but a couple of years ago they would freeze up on us so we had to =
disable it)

Hmm.. Perhaps the NFS server is waiting for some locks to be released =
before it can close down it=E2=80=99s end of the TCP link? Reservations?=20=


But I=E2=80=99d suspect something else since we=E2=80=99ve been running =
NFSv4.1/Kerberos on our FreeBSD 11.3/12.2 servers for a long time with =
many Linux clients and most issues (the last couple of years) we=E2=80=99v=
e seen have been on the Linux end of things=E2=80=A6 Like the bugs in =
the Linux gss daemons or their single-threaded mount() sys call, or =
automounter freezing up... and other fun bugs.

- Peter

> On 17 Mar 2021, at 23:17, Jason Breitman =
<jbreitman@tildenparkcapital.com> wrote:
>=20
> Thank you for the responses.
> The NFS Client does properly negotiate down to 128K for the rsize and =
wsize.
>=20
> The client port should be changing as we are using the noresvport =
option.
>=20
> On the NFS Client
> cat /proc/mounts
> nfs-server.domain.com:/data /mnt/data nfs4 =
rw,relatime,vers=3D4.1,rsize=3D131072,wsize=3D131072,namlen=3D255,hard,nor=
esvport,proto=3Dtcp,timeo=3D600,retrans=3D2,sec=3Dkrb5,clientaddr=3DNFS.Cl=
ient.IP.X,lookupcache=3Dpos,local_lock=3Dnone,addr=3DNFS.Server.IP.X 0 0
>=20
> When the issue occurs, this is what I see on the NFS Server.
> tcp4       0      0 NFS.Server.IP.X.2049      NFS.Client.IP.X.51550    =
 CLOSE_WAIT =20
>=20
> Capturing packets right before the issue is a great idea, but I am =
concerned about running tcpdump for such an extended period of time on =
an active server.
> I have gone 9 days with no issue which would be a lot of data and =
overhead.
>=20
> I will look into disabling the TSO and LRO options and let the group =
know how it goes.
> Below are the current options on the NFS Server.
> lagg0: flags=3D8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> =
metric 0 mtu 1500
> 	=
options=3De507bb<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,JUMBO_MTU,VLAN_HWCS=
UM,TSO4,TSO6,LRO,VLAN_HWFILTER,VLAN_HWTSO,RXCSUM_IPV6,TXCSUM_IPV6>
>=20
> Please share other ideas if you have them.
>=20
> Jason Breitman
>=20
>=20
> On Mar 17, 2021, at 5:58 PM, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> =
wrote:
>=20
> Alan Somers wrote:
> [stuff snipped]
>> Is the 128K limit related to MAXPHYS? If so, it should be greater in =
13.0.
> For the client, yes. For the server, no.
> For the server, it is just a compile time constant NFS_SRVMAXIO.
>=20
> It's mainly related to the fact that I haven't gotten around to =
testing larger
> sizes yet.
> - kern.ipc.maxsockbuf needs to be several times the limit, which means =
it would
> have to increase for 1Mbyte.
> - The session code must negotiate a maximum RPC size > 1 Mbyte.
> (I think the server code does do this, but it needs to be tested.)
> And, yes, the client is limited to MAXPHYS.
>=20
> Doing this is on my todo list, rick
>=20
> The client should acquire the attributes that indicate that and set =
rsize/wsize
> to that. "# nfsstat -m" on the client should show you what the client
> is actually using. If it is larger than 128K, set both rsize and wsize =
to 128K.
>=20
>> Output from the NFS Client when the issue occurs
>> # netstat -an | grep NFS.Server.IP.X
>> tcp 0 0 NFS.Client.IP.X:46896 NFS.Server.IP.X:2049 FIN_WAIT2
> I'm no TCP guy. Hopefully others might know why the client would be
> stuck in FIN_WAIT2 (I vaguely recall this means it is waiting for a =
fin/ack,
> but could be wrong?)
>=20
>> # cat /sys/kernel/debug/sunrpc/rpc_xprt/*/info
>> netid: tcp
>> addr: NFS.Server.IP.X
>> port: 2049
>> state: 0x51
>>=20
>> syslog
>> Mar 4 10:29:27 hostname kernel: [437414.131978] -pid- flgs status =
-client- --rqstp- ->timeout ---ops--
>> Mar 4 10:29:27 hostname kernel: [437414.133158] 57419 40a1 0 9b723c73 =
>143cfadf 30000 4ca953b5 nfsv4 OPEN_NOATTR a:call_connect_status =
[sunrpc] >q:xprt_pending
> I don't know what OPEN_NOATTR means, but I assume it is some variant
> of NFSv4 Open operation.
> [stuff snipped]
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.110517] RPC: 57419 =
xprt_connect_status: >connect attempt timed out
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.112172] RPC: 57419 =
call_connect_status
>> (status -110)
> I have no idea what status -110 means?
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.113337] RPC: 57419 =
call_timeout (major)
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.114385] RPC: 57419 call_bind =
(status 0)
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.115402] RPC: 57419 =
call_connect xprt >00000000e061831b is not connected
>> Mar 4 10:29:30 hostname kernel: [437417.116547] RPC: 57419 =
xprt_connect xprt >00000000e061831b is not connected
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.551090] RPC: 57419 =
xprt_connect_status: >connect attempt timed out
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.552396] RPC: 57419 =
call_connect_status >(status -110)
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.553417] RPC: 57419 =
call_timeout (minor)
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.554327] RPC: 57419 call_bind =
(status 0)
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.555220] RPC: 57419 =
call_connect xprt >00000000e061831b is not connected
>> Mar 4 10:30:31 hostname kernel: [437478.556254] RPC: 57419 =
xprt_connect xprt >00000000e061831b is not connected
> Is it possible that the client is trying to (re)connect using the same =
client port#?
> I would normally expect the client to create a new TCP connection =
using a
> different client port# and then retry the outstanding RPCs.
> --> Capturing packets when this happens would show us what is going =
on.
>=20
> If there is a problem on the FreeBSD end, it is most likely a broken
> network device driver.
> --> Try disabling TSO , LRO.
> --> Try a different driver for the net hardware on the server.
> --> Try a different net chip on the server.
> If you can capture packets when (not after) the hang
> occurs, then you can look at them in wireshark and see
> what is actually happening. (Ideally on both client and
> server, to check that your network hasn't dropped anything.)
> --> I know, if the hangs aren't easily reproducible, this isn't
> easily done.
> --> Try a newer Linux kernel and see if the problem persists.
> The Linux folk will get more interested if you can reproduce
> the problem on 5.12. (Recent bakeathon testing of the 5.12
> kernel against the FreeBSD server did not find any issues.)
>=20
> Hopefully the network folk have some insight w.r.t. why
> the TCP connection is sitting in FIN_WAIT2.
>=20
> rick
>=20
>=20
>=20
> Jason Breitman
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org> mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebs=
d.org>"
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org> mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebs=
d.org>"
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3CF50285-AD1F-4D0C-B298-0B6263B4AB45>