On Apr 13, 2009, at 11:24 AM, Daniel Stickney wrote:
Hi all,
I am investigating some NFS mount hangs that we have started to see
over the past month on some of our servers. The behavior is that the
client mount hangs and needs to be manually unmounted (forcefully
with 'umount -f') and remounted to make it work. There are about 85
clients mounting a partition over NFS. About 50 of the clients are
running Fedora Core 3 with kernel 2.6.11-1.27_FC3smp. Not one of
these 50 has ever had this mount hang. The other 35 are CentOS 5.2
with kernel 2.6.27 which was compiled from source. The mount hangs
are inconsistent and so far I don't know how to trigger them on
demand. The timing of the hangs as noted by the timestamp in /var/
log/messages varies. Not all of the 35 CentOS clients have their
mounts hang at the same time, and the NFS server continues operating
apparently normally for all other clients. Normally maybe 5 clients
have a mount hang per week, on different days, mostly different
times. Now and then we might see a cluster of a few clien
ts have their mounts hang at the same exact time, but this is not
consistent. In /var/log/messages we see
Apr 12 02:04:12 worker120 kernel: nfs: server broker101 not
responding, still trying
Are these NFS/UDP or NFS/TCP mounts?
If you use a different kernel (say, 2.6.26) on the CentOS systems, do
the hangs go away?
One very interesting aspect of this behavior is that the load value
on the client with the hung mount immediately spikes to (16.00)+
(normal load value). We have also seen client load spikes to (30.00)+
(normal load value). These discrete load value increases might be a
good hint.
Running 'df' prints some output and then hangs when it reaches the
hung mount point. 'mount -v' shows the mount point like normal. When
an NFS server is rebooted, we are used to seeing the client log a
"nfs: server ___________ not responding, still trying", then a "nfs:
server __________ OK" message when it comes back online. With this
issue there is never an "OK" message even though the NFS server is
still functioning for all other NFS clients. On a client which has a
hung NFS mount, running 'rpcinfo -p' and 'showmount -e' against the
NFS server shows that RPC and NFS appear to be functioning between
client and server even during the issue.
# rpcinfo -p broker101
program vers proto port
100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper
100000 2 udp 111 portmapper
100021 1 udp 32779 nlockmgr
100021 3 udp 32779 nlockmgr
100021 4 udp 32779 nlockmgr
100021 1 tcp 60389 nlockmgr
100021 3 tcp 60389 nlockmgr
100021 4 tcp 60389 nlockmgr
100011 1 udp 960 rquotad
100011 2 udp 960 rquotad
100011 1 tcp 963 rquotad
100011 2 tcp 963 rquotad
100003 2 udp 2049 nfs
100003 3 udp 2049 nfs
100003 4 udp 2049 nfs
100003 2 tcp 2049 nfs
100003 3 tcp 2049 nfs
100003 4 tcp 2049 nfs
100005 1 udp 995 mountd
100005 1 tcp 998 mountd
100005 2 udp 995 mountd
100005 2 tcp 998 mountd
100005 3 udp 995 mountd
100005 3 tcp 998 mountd
# showmount -e broker101
Export list for broker101:
/mnt/sdc1 *
/mnt/sdb1 *
It is confusing that the NFS client doesn't recover automatically.
So whatever the issue is evidently is blocking the kernel from
seeing that the NFS server is live and functioning after the issue
is triggered.
I'm running low on ideas of how to resolve this. One idea I have is
to modify some NFS client timeout values, but I don't have a
specific reason to think this will resolve the problem. Right now
the values are:
# sysctl -a | grep -i nfs
fs.nfs.nlm_grace_period = 0
fs.nfs.nlm_timeout = 10
fs.nfs.nlm_udpport = 0
fs.nfs.nlm_tcpport = 0
fs.nfs.nsm_use_hostnames = 0
fs.nfs.nsm_local_state = 0
fs.nfs.nfs_callback_tcpport = 0
fs.nfs.idmap_cache_timeout = 600
fs.nfs.nfs_mountpoint_timeout = 500
fs.nfs.nfs_congestion_kb = 65152
sunrpc.nfs_debug = 0
sunrpc.nfsd_debug = 0
I've turned on nfs debugging but there was a tremendous amount of
output because of the NFS clients activity on several different (and
working) NFS mount points. I can capture and supply this output
again if it would be helpful. Has anyone seen this behavior before,
and does anyone have any suggestions for how this might be resolved?
Thanks for your time,
Daniel Stickney
Operations Manager - Systems and Network Engineer
--
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
--
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
