Ahh, this might be my nfs problem I am now seeing, see my other posting to this list about that issue. If anyone knows of a fix for this, outside of downgrading to 6.0 please let me know. It's for sure a nusiance when I have half dozen other machines that NFS to that server. I don't have em0, but do have fxp0, and am seeing massive CPU if I do something like a du on the NFS mount.
--- Howard Leadmon http://www.leadmon.net > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rong-en Fan > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 6.1-RELEASE, em0 high interrupt rate and nfsd > eats lots of cpu > > On 5/15/06, Dmitriy Kirhlarov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:15:08PM -0400, Rong-en Fan wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > After upgrading from 5.5-PRERELEASE to 6.1-RELEASE on one > nfs server > > > today, I noticed that the load is very high, ranging from 4.x to > > > 30.x, depends how many nfsd I run. From mrtg traffic graph, I did > > > not notice there is high traffic. This box is 2 physical > Xeon CPU w/ > > > > I have same situation today on RC2. > > One client installing world from nfs share. > > nfsd eat 91% CPU, load average 6-8. Very small disk activitie. > > I don't look interrupt rate. > > I, also, have em0. > > After some digging, I found the cpu-eater nfsd can be > triggered by running ``du'' on nfs client (both FreeBSD 6.1-R > and Linux box). > The nfsd will eat lots of CPU. After the client's du is > finished, the nfsd still eat lots of CPU. The workaround is to > > /etc/rc.d/nfsd restart > > Everything will be just fine. Besides du, on FreeBSD 6.1-R > client, buildkernel over nfs will trigger the same behavior. > > I just downgraded this box to 6.0-RELEASE and everything > works fine. Running du or buildkernel from nfs client do not > trigger the same behavior. I will try to do a binary search > from 6.0-R to 6.1-R see if I can find out related commits. > > By the way, I have another nfs server running 6.1-RELEASE, > but it does not exhibit this behavior. Kernel conf and sysctl > are basically the same for both boxes. > > Regards, > Rong-En Fan > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
