Hi Tom-
On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:49 PM, Talpey, Thomas wrote:
I think a second or two is way too short, but I do wonder if it can't
issue the unregisters asynchronously, and in parallel.
You would have to parallelize the setup of the lockd and nfsd
services. Ie this would be a ULP change. Doable, but complicated.
Can you say why you think two seconds is too short for a local host
operation?
Then it can
wait for them all, with a timeout maybe on the order of 10 to 15
seconds. A couple of retries while waiting sounds reasonable.
The current situation is a 5 second timeout, followed by 10, then
20. Even shortening the initial timeout would be helpful, or making
it not do exponential backoff.
NFSD is usually started during system boot. If there are problems
like this, it looks like a boot hang.
Making the wait interruptible seems dicey. Once the deregistration
is started, it seems like it should always make a best attempt to
complete it.
If you interrupt a script like /etc/init.d/nfs, you will just have to
re-run it, and it will try the unregistration again. I'm not sure
what you protect by making unregistration uninterruptible.
This may be an undesired artifact of neutering "intr" in 2.6.25.
Also, nfsd is usually started as a service, so there's
not likely to be a user.
The system actually does throw an "ICMP port unreachable" if the
daemon isn't listening. The problem is this never gets back to the
RPC client. Even if it did, what's the correct thing to do?
At 12:38 PM 4/4/2008, Chuck Lever wrote:
Registering a local RPC service has a long timeout.
When starting the NFSD service, for example, the RPC server wants to
unregister at least 6 different RPC services (three versions of NFS
and three versions of lockd) before it even tries to register the
services it's bringing up.
Usually this isnt' a problem. However, if a portmapper or rpcbind
daemon isn't running, each one of these registrations causes a long
wait (up to a minute each, I think) while the RPC server attempts to
contact the rpcbind daemon at localhost.
I don't think this wait is interruptible, either.
I'm wondering if this long timeout is really necessary. Can we get
by with a second or so, and a couple of retries?
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
