J. Bruce Fields :
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:42:18PM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
>>
>> J. Bruce Fields:
>>> Our current NFS implementation just isn't designed to be able to shut
>>> down some components while leaving others running.
>> Really? But the lockd started with nfs service start, but not nfslock service.
>> And, lockd can't stop with statd at the same time.
>> Sometimes, the lockd will not synchronous with statd. Maybe this problem is a good example.
>
> I'm sorry, I still don't understand.
>
> Please take a look at section 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the nfs-utils README
> file. That describes the order in which servers should be started and
> stopped.
Maybe that's my problem.
The status of lockd and statd, when testing.
lockd statd
| | <== service nfslock stop
get KILL signal stopd ^
and get into grace_period | |
| | | more than grace_period time
| | v
| | <== service nfslock start
normal state |
| start Client receive SM_NOTIFY and reclaime lock,
| | but out of grace_period time.
v v
As above, after nfslock service start, client cannot reclaime lock success.
thanks,
Mi Jinlong
--
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
