On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:43:40AM -0800, Jeff Dinisco wrote: > Is the slow output from df expected? Does it just take considerable > time to read a gfs superblock? Yes, it's expected; df locks ever resource group in the fs to collect usage information, so large fs's will take longer, and heavy writers on other nodes will delay it further. > In my scenario, is it likely that heavy lock load was caused by the > combination df and a umount at the same time? I'm not sure lock load is related to this particular case. After studying your logs I think I know what the problem is; it's a situation where a dlm message from an unmounting node is received after recovery for it is completed on the remaining nodes. A quick and correct fix would be to remove the assertion (or perhaps change it, I'll see.) > Were the gfs recover events in the log prior to the kernel panic > normal, or is it possible that I attempted the umount too quickly after > mounting? Mounting and unmounting always involve dlm recovery which is more prone to bugs and corner cases, so avoiding unnecessary or rapidly repeating mounting/unmounting is usually wise. You didn't do anything wrong, though; it's simply a corner case we aren't handling properly. > Would r/o mounts decrease lock load and the likelihood of this occurring > again? no Dave -- Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
