On Tue 15 Nov 2011 05:16:23 PM EST, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:48:57PM -0500, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>> On 11/15/2011 10:50 AM, Pavel wrote:
>>> Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...> writes:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon 14 Nov 2011 02:10:05 PM EST, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
>>>>> Hello Pavel,
>>>>>
>>>>> What kernel version is Debian using? I haven't been able to reproduce the
>>> problem using 3.0 (But I'm on
>>>> Archlinux, so there might be other differences).
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bryan, for your reply.
>>>
>>> Debian is using Linux kernel version 2.6.32 - I haven't upgraded it.
>>>
>>>> It might also be useful if you could share the /etc/exports file on the
>>>> server.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> - Bryan
>>>
>>> Thank you for the question - that was my rude mistake. For managing exports I'm
>>> using OCF resource agent 'exportfs'. It uses Linux build-in command 'exportfs'
>>> to export shares and /etc/exports file is empty. However Heartbeat starts much
>>> later than NFS...Now it is clear why this wasn't working. Setting up share that
>>> doesn't rely on Heartbeat resources, resolves the issue.
>>>
>>> Still though, the first test was just to make sure NFS functions the way it is
>>> supposed to, and not the goal - the second/main question remains open. When I
>>> run sm-notify in this case, shares are already exported and all the other needed
>>> resources are available as well. Why doesn't sm-notify work? It doesn't work
>>> even in case of single server test. As of using files from /var/lib/nfs/sm/ when
>>> notifying clients from the other node in cluster, it should be okay with -v
>>> option of sm-notify, because it is a common practice to store the whole
>>> /var/lib/nfs folder on shared storage in Active/Passive clusters and trigger sm-
>>> notify from the active node. It would be awesome if you could give me a clue.
>>
>> I'm seeing the same thing you are using some Debian VMs I set up yesterday afternoon. It does look like the server is replying with NLM_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD when sm-notify is used. Bruce, any idea what's going on here?
>
> Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up.... What exactly do you do, on
> which machine, and what do you then see happen?
Here is what I'm doing (On debian with 2.6.32):
- (On Client) Mount the server: `sudo mount -o vers=3
192.168.122.202:/home/bjschuma /mnt`
- (On Client) Lock a file using nfs-utils/tools/locktest: `./testlk
/mnt/test`
- (On Server) Call sm-notify with the server's IP address: `sudo
sm-notify -f -v 192.168.122.202`
- dmesg on the client has this message:
lockd: spurious grace period reject?!
lockd: failed to reclaim lock for pid 2099 (errno -37, status 4)
- (In wireshark) The client sends a lock request with the "Reclaim" bit
set to "yes" but the server replies with "NLM_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD".
Shouldn't the server be allowing the lock reclaim? When I tried
yesterday using 3.0 it only triggered DNS packets, I tried again a few
minutes ago and got the same results that I did using .32.
- Bryan
>
> --b.
>
>>
>> When I try using my Linux 3.0 / Archlinux machines I don't see any NLM requests due to sm-notify. I'm not sure that's correct...
> --
> 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
--
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
