Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2019 08:18:08 +0200 From: Daniel Braniss <danny@cs.huji.ac.il> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Adam McDougall <mcdouga9@egr.msu.edu>, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: nfs lockd errors after NetApp software upgrade. Message-ID: <AE8F5D6B-E7DA-4AB9-B909-7D362A6A406B@cs.huji.ac.il> In-Reply-To: <YQBPR0101MB1427C9D4CF8918F10B6FD400DD2C0@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> 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> <YQBPR0101MB1427F9BE658B9A46C7E08335DD520@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <854B6E5A-C6BC-44B3-A656-FC9B8EF19881@cs.huji.ac.il> <YQBPR0101MB1427F445F1F1EAF382E5131ADD520@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8770BD0D-4B72-431A-B4F5-A29D4DBA03B1@cs.huji.ac.il> <b1182bbf-fd0b-a23d-1cc4-ddf9513bcb2e@egr.msu.edu> <YQBPR0101MB1427CE52BBA32A888443BFB4DD2D0@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <8A78F67B-C244-45CF-B9BF-D7062669B33B@cs.huji.ac.il> <YQBPR0101MB1427C9D4CF8918F10B6FD400DD2C0@YQBPR0101MB1427.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 21 Dec 2019, at 19:32, Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> wrote: >=20 > Daniel Braniss wrote: >>> On 20 Dec 2019, at 19:19, Rick Macklem = >><rmacklem@uoguelph.ca<mailto:rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>> wrote: >>>=20 >>> Adam McDougall wrote: >>>> Try changing bool_t do_tcp =3D FALSE; to TRUE in >>>> /usr/src/sys/nlm/nlm_prot_impl.c, recompile the kernel and try = again. I >>>> think this makes it match Linux client behavior. I suspect I ran = into >>>> the same issue as you. I do think I used nolockd is a workaround >>>> temporarily. I can provide some more details if it works. >>> If this fixes the problem, please let me know. >>>=20 >>> I'm not sure I'd want to change the default, since it might break = things for >>> others, but I can definitely make it a tunable, so that people don't = need to >>> recompile a kernel to deal with it. >>>=20 >>>=20 >> great! I was just about to see how it can be done(tunable) but need = to check if it can >be done >> at any time, or just at boot time. > I haven't looked at the code, but I suspect changing it on the fly = could cause problems, > so I am inclined to make it a tunable (boot time only). my feelings too. >=20 >> thanks. >> btw, currently, from several hours of analysing the traffic, it seems = that nlm is UDP. > I assume that means you haven't tried flipping it to TCP yet. I will soon, but I have my doubts, the problem is caused my multiple = events, i.e, it happened once while I was doing svn checkout, but i have done it several times since, and no = issues. So it must be an aggregation of factors. Other hosts are reporting locks times too. danny >=20 > Please let us know how it goes, rick >=20 > danny >=20 >=20 > rick >=20 > On 12/19/19 9:21 AM, Daniel Braniss wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 19 Dec 2019, at 16:09, Rick Macklem = <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca<mailto:rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>> wrote: >=20 > Daniel Braniss wrote: > [stuff snipped] > all mounts are nfsv3/tcp > This doesn't affect what the NLM code (rpc.lockd) uses. I honestly = don't know when > the NLM uses tcp vs udp. I think rpc.statd still uses IP broadcast at = times. > can the replay cache have any influence here? I tend to remember way = back issues > with it, >=20 > To me, it looks like a network configuration issue. > that was/is my gut feelings too, but, as far as we can tell, nothing = has changed in the network infrastructure, > the problems appeared after the NetAPP=E2=80=99s software was updated, = it was working fine till then. >=20 > the problems are also happening on freebsd 12.1 >=20 > You could capture packets (maybe when a client first starts rpc.statd = and rpc.lockd) > and then look at them in wireshark. I'd disable statup of rpc.lockd = and rpc.statd > at boot for a test client and then run something like: > # tcpdump -s 0 -s out.pcap host <netapp-host> > - and then start rpc.statd and rpc.lockd > Then I'd look at out.pcap in wireshark (much better at decoding this = stuff than > tcpdump). I'd look for things like different reply IP addresses from = the Netapp, > which might confuse this tired old NLM protocol Sun devised in the = mid-1980s. >=20 > it=E2=80=99s going to be an interesting week end :-( >=20 > the error is also appearing on freebsd-11.2-stable, I=E2=80=99m now = checking if it=E2=80=99s also > happening on 12.1 > btw, the NetApp version is 9.3P17 > Yes. I wasn't the author of the NSM and NLM code (long ago I refused = to even > try to implement it, because I knew the protocol was badly broken) and = I avoid > fiddling with. As such, it won't have change much since around = FreeBSD7. > and we haven=E2=80=99t had any issues with it for years, so you must = have done something good >=20 > cheers, > danny >=20 >=20 > rick >=20 > cheers, > danny >=20 > rick >=20 > Cheers >=20 > Richard > (NetApp admin) >=20 > On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at 15:46, Daniel Braniss = <danny@cs.huji.ac.il<mailto:danny@cs.huji.ac.il><mailto:danny@cs.huji.ac.i= l>> wrote: >=20 >=20 > On 18 Dec 2019, at 16:55, Rick Macklem = <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca<mailto:rmacklem@uoguelph.ca><mailto:rmacklem@uoguelp= h.ca>> wrote: >=20 > Daniel Braniss wrote: >=20 > 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 = reporting 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 = think the NLM > and NSM (rpc.statd) still use IP broadcast sometimes. >=20 > 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 = by 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. >=20 >=20 > - If the locks don't need to be seen by other clients, you can just = use 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. >=20 > Good luck with it, rick > thanks > danny >=20 > =E2=80=A6 > any ideas? >=20 > thanks, > danny >=20 > _______________________________________________ > = freebsd-stable@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org><mailto:freeb= sd-stable@freebsd.org> mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@= freebsd.org>" >=20 > _______________________________________________ > = freebsd-stable@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org><mailto:freeb= sd-stable@freebsd.org> mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to = "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org<mailto:freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@= freebsd.org>" >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org<mailto: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" >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org<mailto: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<mailto:freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@= freebsd.org>" > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org<mailto: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<mailto:freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@= freebsd.org>" >=20
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AE8F5D6B-E7DA-4AB9-B909-7D362A6A406B>