On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 09:21:44AM +0000, Daire Byrne wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jan 2022 at 17:17, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hm, doesn't each of these use up a reserved port on the client by > > default? I forget the details of that. Does "noresvport" help? > > Yes, I think this might be the issue. It seems like only 13/16 > connections actually initially get setup at mount time and then it > tries to connect the full 16 once some activity to the mountpoint > starts. My guess is that we run out of reserved ports at that point > and continually trigger the BIND_CONN_TO_SESSION. > > I can use noresvport with an NFSv3 client mount and it seems to do the > right thing (with the server exporting "insecure), but it doesn't seem > to have any effect on a NFSv4.2 mount (still uses ports <1024). Is > that expected? No. Sounds like something's going wrong. --b. > Perhaps NFSv4.2 doesn't allow "insecure" mounts? > > Daire
