On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 09:25:01AM -0500, Bryan Schumaker wrote: > 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". That sounds like correct server behavior to me. Once the server ends the grace period and starts accepting regular non-reclaim locks, there's the chance of a situation like: client A client B -------- -------- acquires lock ---server reboot--- ---grace period ends--- acquires conflicting lock drops conflicting lock And if the server permits a reclaim of the original lock from client A, then it gives client A the impression that it has held its lock continuously over this whole time, when in fact someone else has held a conflicting lock. So: no non-reclaim locks are allowed outside the grace period. If you restart the server, and *then* immediately run sm-notify while the new nfsd is still in its grace period, I'd expect the reclaim to succeed. And that may be where the HA setup isn't right--if you're doing active/passive failover, then you need to make sure you don't start nfsd on the backup machine until just before you send the sm-notify. --b. > > 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. -- 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
