On 30/09/2021 19:27, Roger Heflin wrote:
Raid0, so there is no redundancy on the data?
And what kind of underlying hard disks? The desktop drives will try
for a long time (ie a minute or more) to read any bad blocks. Those
disks will not report an error unless it gets to the default os
timeout, or it hits the disk firmware timeout.
The sar data will show if one of the disks is being slow on the server end.
On the client end you are unlikely to get anything useful from any
samples as it seems pretty likely the server is not responding to nfs
and/or the disks are not responding.
It could be as simple as on login it tries to read a badish/slow block
and that block takes a while to finally get it to read. If that is
happening it will probably eventually stop being able to read it, and
if you really are using raid0 then some data will be lost.
All of the nfsv4 issues I have ran into involve it just breaking and
staying broke (usually when the server reboots). I never had it have
big sudden pauses, but using v3 won't hurt and I try to avoid v4
still.
Sorry I meant Raid1, they are WD RED WD30EFRX-68N32N0 disks, I have
found them pretty good for 24/7 RAID usage on a few different systems
and have had no issues like this until about a month ago. Unfortunately
I don't think sar will show latency, only amount of disk usage. Yes NFS
V4 does have issues with things like directory access performance over
slow connections etc.
_______________________________________________
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
