Re: NFS problem (non-sleepable locks held)

2003-11-11 Thread Robert Watson
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, cosmin wrote: > I'm getting the following message when transfering data to a > freebsd-current server via an nfs mount from another fbsd client. > > malloc() of "64" with the following non-sleepable locks held: exclusive > sleep mutex inp r = 0 (0xc1d250ac) locked @ > /usr

NFS problem (non-sleepable locks held)

2003-11-11 Thread cosmin
I'm getting the following message when transfering data to a freebsd-current server via an nfs mount from another fbsd client. malloc() of "64" with the following non-sleepable locks held: exclusive sleep mutex inp r = 0 (0xc1d250ac) locked @ /usr/src/sys/netinet/udp_usrreq.c:378 The message

Re: NFS problem

2003-07-17 Thread Terry Lambert
S³awek ¯ak wrote: > Now I guess it's Solaris specific. If you want some more details, let me know. Wish you'd said "Solaris" first; but of course, we probably would have told you "Go ask on the Solaris-current mailing list at Solaris.org -- oops, sorry, Sun charges for support" 8-). As someone el

Re: NFS problem

2003-07-17 Thread Sławek Żak
Peter Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > >> > All the files are 0-sized, dates are set back to the epoch and >> > directories are seen as files. Exporting ufs2 filesystems works as >> > expected. > > I've had problems like this exporting CDs via NFS to solaris. > Sorry the details are mur

Re: NFS problem

2003-07-17 Thread Peter Edwards
Hi, > > All the files are 0-sized, dates are set back to the epoch and > > directories are seen as files. Exporting ufs2 filesystems works as > > expected. I've had problems like this exporting CDs via NFS to solaris. Sorry the details are murky, but if its the same problem, there's a work-aroun

Re: NFS problem

2003-07-17 Thread Sławek Żak
Terry Lambert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I guess there is something wrong with exporting iso9660 CD's over NFS. I've added >> >> /cdrom -ro -mapall=root >> >> to /etc/exports, restarted mountd and after mounting the CD on Solaris 8. All the >> files are 0-sized, dates are set back to the ep

Re: NFS problem

2003-07-16 Thread Terry Lambert
S³awek ¯ak wrote: > I guess there is something wrong with exporting iso9660 CD's over NFS. I've added > > /cdrom -ro -mapall=root > > to /etc/exports, restarted mountd and after mounting the CD on Solaris 8. All the > files are 0-sized, dates are set back to the epoch and directories are seen a

NFS problem

2003-07-16 Thread Sławek Żak
I guess there is something wrong with exporting iso9660 CD's over NFS. I've added /cdrom -ro -mapall=root to /etc/exports, restarted mountd and after mounting the CD on Solaris 8. All the files are 0-sized, dates are set back to the epoch and directories are seen as files. Exporting ufs2 filesy

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Hmm, interesting. Do you have a 3C905B kicking around there somewhere :that you could repeat the profiling run with? I must admit I hadn't had :a chance to look at a profile dump using fxp, and this comes as a bit of :a surprise. I have two but they are both on slow machines (read: can'

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-18 Thread Mike Smith
> :That's interesting then, since your results are somewhat at odds with > :what I've seen so far regarding interrupt load for network traffic. Do > :you have any profiling results that point the finger more directly at > :anything? > : > :-- > > Ok, here is the kernel gprof output for o

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Mike Smith
> > :< said: > : > :> the IP and UDP checksum guessing, but more that I think you'll find that > :> a considerable amount of the inbound NFS traffic handling is actually > :> performed in the interrupt context > : > :If it is, then there is a serious bug. > > No serious NFS traffic handlin

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Kenneth D. Merry writes: > > > Another advantage with gigabit ethernet is that if you can do jumbo frames, > you can fit an entire 8K NFS packet in one frame. > > I'd like to see NFS numbers from two 21264 Alphas with GigE cards, zero > copy, checksum offloading and a big striped array

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Matthew Dillon
:< said: : :> the IP and UDP checksum guessing, but more that I think you'll find that :> a considerable amount of the inbound NFS traffic handling is actually :> performed in the interrupt context : :If it is, then there is a serious bug. : :-GAWollman : :-- :Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Rodney W. Grimes
... > (200-300 MHz) clients. That's *with* packet loss (for some reason when > my fxp ethernets pump data out that quickly they tend to cause packet > loss in other parts of my HUBed network, which I find quite annoying). Interesting you should say that I've been playing with so

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Garrett Wollman
< said: > the IP and UDP checksum guessing, but more that I think you'll find that > a considerable amount of the inbound NFS traffic handling is actually > performed in the interrupt context If it is, then there is a serious bug. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all fami

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Doug Rabson
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Here's a general update on this bug report to -current. It took all day > but I was finally able to reproduce Andrew's bug. > > You guys are going to *love* this. > > NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version i

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-17 Thread Mike Smith
> > We've solved most of the performance issues, but NFS is still > eating a little too much cpu for my tastes. Unfortunately it is getting to > the point where a significant portion of the performance loss is occuring > in the network driver itself. Some of my cards eat 25% of

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Kenneth D. Merry
On Thu, Dec 16, 1999 at 19:28:34 -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > :Matthew Dillon writes: > : > : > We're already testing a patch. > : > :Thanks again Matt! > : > :The latest rev of nfs_serv.c has fixed it. > : > :I'm now seeing FreeBSD UDP client read bandwidth of 9.2MB/sec & write > :bandwid

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Matthew Dillon writes: : : > We're already testing a patch. : :Thanks again Matt! : :The latest rev of nfs_serv.c has fixed it. : :I'm now seeing FreeBSD UDP client read bandwidth of 9.2MB/sec & write :bandwidth of 10.9MB/sec. Solaris clients are writing over TCP at :10.1MB/sec (and that

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Matthew Dillon writes: > We're already testing a patch. Thanks again Matt! The latest rev of nfs_serv.c has fixed it. I'm now seeing FreeBSD UDP client read bandwidth of 9.2MB/sec & write bandwidth of 10.9MB/sec. Solaris clients are writing over TCP at 10.1MB/sec (and that is across a

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Mike Smith
> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > : If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the > > : amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime > > : is only an estimate. > > > > Ther

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Andrew Kenneth Milton
+[ Warner Losh ]- | | There is one problem with this. The amount of uptime isn't the same | as the amount of time since the machine booted. How can this happen? | When a laptop suspends, it doesn't update the update while it is | asleep, nor does i

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Tom Bartol
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Bartol >writes: > : I tried 3.0-current after this merge, suspend and resume worked fine on my > : 770 with the exception of uptime. > > I can confirm that uptime, at least as reported by uptime(1), isn't > increased

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Bartol writes: : I tried 3.0-current after this merge, suspend and resume worked fine on my : 770 with the exception of uptime. I can confirm that uptime, at least as reported by uptime(1), isn't increased in the latest -current. Warner To Unsubscribe: send

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Tom Bartol
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Bartol >writes: > : IIRC it does update uptime properly after a suspend in 2.2.8 but does not > : do so in 3.X and -current on my ThinkPad 770. > > define correctly. Eg, if I suspend for an hour it adds an hour? >

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Bartol writes: : IIRC it does update uptime properly after a suspend in 2.2.8 but does not : do so in 3.X and -current on my ThinkPad 770. define correctly. Eg, if I suspend for an hour it adds an hour? Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : Well, I don't think anybody has seriously thought about what the right : semantics for APM is, and consequently the code we have is rather evil. Don't know if I'd go so far as to say evil, but there are some pola issues. : What to do is

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Nate Williams
> : If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the > : amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime > : is only an estimate. > > There is one problem with this. The amount of uptime isn't the same > as the amount of time since the machine booted. How c

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Tom Bartol
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > : If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the > : amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime > : is only an estimate. > > There is one problem wi

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Warner Losh writes: >In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >: If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the >: amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime >: is only an estimate. > >There is one problem

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Warner Losh
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: : If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the : amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime : is only an estimate. There is one problem with this. The amount of uptime isn't the same as the am

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Matthew Dillon
: : :>Yeah, uptime is moving which makes it difficult for me too. When new :>machines enter the network, they need to announce a number which is used to :>decice who will become the master if the current master disappears. I could :>just announce currenttime-uptime, but that's got a slightly diff

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
>Yeah, uptime is moving which makes it difficult for me too. When new >machines enter the network, they need to announce a number which is used to >decice who will become the master if the current master disappears. I could >just announce currenttime-uptime, but that's got a slightly different >m

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Kevin Day
> > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes: > > > > >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated > > >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up > > >longest knew more about the state of the network) Having this change could

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Matthew Reimer
Matt, you are a tenacious, fearsome bug hunter! Matt Matthew Dillon wrote: > > Here's a general update on this bug report to -current. It took all day > but I was finally able to reproduce Andrew's bug. > > You guys are going to *love* this. > > NFS uses the kernel 'boottime'

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nate Williams writes: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes: >> >> >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated >> >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up >> >longest knew more about the

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Peter Wemm
Nate Williams wrote: > > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes: > > > > >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated > > >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up > > >longest knew more about the state of the network) Having

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Nate Williams
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes: > > >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated > >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up > >longest knew more about the state of the network) Having this change could > >cause wei

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Matthew Dillon writes: > > And so Andrews bug report comes into the light! His poor client > (and mine once I reproduced the bug) got into a state, due to the > server returning a different version id for virtually every packet, > where it resent the same write data over t

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes: >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up >longest knew more about the state of the network) Having this change could >cause weirdness for m

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-16 Thread Matthew Dillon
: :> :> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes: :> > :> >:>NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version id. :> >:>Now normally you might believe that this structure, once set, will :> >:>never change. The authors of NFS certainly make that assumpti

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Kevin Day
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes: > > > >:>NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version id. > >:>Now normally you might believe that this structure, once set, will > >:>never change. The authors of NFS certainly make that assumption! > >:

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes: > >:>NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version id. >:>Now normally you might believe that this structure, once set, will >:>never change. The authors of NFS certainly make that assumption! >: >:Is this anoth

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
:>NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version id. :>Now normally you might believe that this structure, once set, will :>never change. The authors of NFS certainly make that assumption! : :Is this another case of "lets assume the time of day is a random number" o

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Dillon writes: >Here's a general update on this bug report to -current. It took all day >but I was finally able to reproduce Andrew's bug. > >You guys are going to *love* this. > >NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its vers

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
Here's a general update on this bug report to -current. It took all day but I was finally able to reproduce Andrew's bug. You guys are going to *love* this. NFS uses the kernel 'boottime' structure to generate its version id. Now normally you might believe that this structur

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Matthew Dillon writes: > > : > : > :Matthew Dillon writes: > : > This is very odd. Does it lockup with UDP or only with TCP? And only > : > with a solaris client? > : > :This appears to be solaris only. I just tried a UDP mount & I see the > :same problem. Is there anythin

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Matthew Dillon writes: > > :Also, while read performance has improved by 44%, write performance > :has degraded by between 50 - 70% (FreeBSD clients)! Here are some > :quick benchmarks. Note that the file size of 512MB is larger than > :memory on both the server and client. Also note tha

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
:Also, while read performance has improved by 44%, write performance :has degraded by between 50 - 70% (FreeBSD clients)! Here are some :quick benchmarks. Note that the file size of 512MB is larger than :memory on both the server and client. Also note that the disk array :on the server will re

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
: : :Matthew Dillon writes: : > This is very odd. Does it lockup with UDP or only with TCP? And only : > with a solaris client? : :This appears to be solaris only. I just tried a UDP mount & I see the :same problem. Is there anything else I can do? Yes, see if you can repeat th

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Matthew Dillon writes: > This is very odd. Does it lockup with UDP or only with TCP? And only > with a solaris client? This appears to be solaris only. I just tried a UDP mount & I see the same problem. Is there anything else I can do? <...> > : > :- UDP NFS write performance

Re: Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Matthew Dillon
:However, I'm seeing a showstopping problem when running newer kernels: :When writing a large file via TCP, a Solaris 2.7 client pauses when :closing the file, and appears to become stuck in an infinate loop. :Eg: : :dd if=/dev/zero of=zot bs=64k count=8192 :8192+0 records in :8192+0 records out :

Serious server-side NFS problem

1999-12-15 Thread Andrew Gallatin
I have a few "scratch" servers which are running -current from early July. They serve large, fast scratch filesystems striped over 4 large IDE drives. With the recent improvements to the NFS code & the ATA code, I was hoping to get them running a more recent -current. However, I'm seeing a sh

NFS problem

1999-03-04 Thread Frank Bonnet
I run a mailhub at 3.1 The problem is the /var/mail directory is NFS mounted with HPUX 10.20 clients there is a file locking problem due to the HPUX /bin/mail command which try to create a user.lock file in the NFS mounted /var/mail directory ... Is there a NFS workaround or do I have to gi

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-19 Thread Bjoern Fischer
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 01:01:34PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote: [...] > > But there's still something wrong: When shutting down the server > > it still sometimes panics in vinvalbuf() complaining 'bout dirty > > pages. > > I'm not sure this has anything to do with NFS. I got this after last > night

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-19 Thread D. Rock
This patch seems to fix my NFS problems. I started a make release yesterday and it is still running (It's a slow machine). No problems so far. The chroot dir is NFSv2/UDP mounted. Thanks, Daniel Luoqi Chen schrieb: > > The check is correct and should be there, the B_CACHE bit was cleared becaus

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-19 Thread Sheldon Hearn
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:38:50 +0100, Bjoern Fischer wrote: > But there's still something wrong: When shutting down the server > it still sometimes panics in vinvalbuf() complaining 'bout dirty > pages. I'm not sure this has anything to do with NFS. I got this after last night's fresh world and k

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-19 Thread Bjoern Fischer
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 10:05:50AM -0500, Luoqi Chen wrote: > The check is correct and should be there, the B_CACHE bit was cleared because > I made a mistake when setting the valid bit in the vm page. [...] > Note the calculation of ev, the original code was a round-up and I changed it > to round-

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
A. Yes, I see. I will unapply my patch and apply this one and test it. I'm not sure what the use of having m->valid and m->clean bits are at all if we have to munge them like this. Perhaps we should change these vm_page_t to a byte range in -4.0. I think we also nee

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-18 Thread Luoqi Chen
The check is correct and should be there, the B_CACHE bit was cleared because I made a mistake when setting the valid bit in the vm page. Index: vfs_bio.c === RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/sys/kern/vfs_bio.c,v retrieving revision 1.192 dif

Re: NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-18 Thread Chris Timmons
Good work! I have to run at the moment but it looks like you nailed this one. Your explanation coincides perfectly with the symptoms. Thanks! -Chris On Mon, 18 Jan 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Ok, I believe I have found the bug. Please test the patch included below. > I was able t

NFS problem found - pleaes try this patch.

1999-01-18 Thread Matthew Dillon
::On the server I downgraded vfs_bio.c to rev 1.187 & rebooted; no luck. I ::then installed the same kernel (with the downgraded vfs_bio.c) to the ::client. Bingo. With both NFS client & server machine running rev 1.187, ::... ::-Chris : :Hmm. r1.88 are Luoqi's fixes to the handling of misa