Re: svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).

[db]

I'm running arm 2.6.30 kernel and a 2.6.30 kernel on my desktop.

I see this  "[1257016.190000] nfsd: last server has exited, flushing
export cache
[1257018.250000] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
."
On both ends. The arm is running debian lenny (armel). The desktop is
debian lenny (32bit i368). When this error i cannot continue to
transfer files.

Here is the config of the /etc/exports and what i try to use

"/media/nfs_shares/rsync/  *(rw,no_subtree_check)"
i mount on the desktop with

[root@desktop ]# mount 192.168.1.12:/media/Y/W/  /media/mount_point/ -o soft

and i try using rsync like this (from my desktop).


rsync -av --progress /home/User_NAME/BACKUP/Y/W/X/ /media/mount_point/W/X
and it just hangs. I then try to unmount it and i have problems doing
so. so i need to force the umount

"19051.391800]     Performance counters on
[319051.391804]     input device check on
[319051.391807]     Actions configured
[399843.223405] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
[399843.223413] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
[399843.346956] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[401465.708049] device eth1 left promiscuous mode
[401689.794716] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402224.640535] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402356.791524] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402702.197491] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
"
I am only using nfs2. I am not using nfs4 / nfs3.

This issue is most troublesome as it breaks my use of nfs.



2009/5/12 Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On May 11, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Frans Pop wrote:
>>
>> On Monday 11 May 2009, you wrote:
>>>
>>> On May 10, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Frans Pop wrote:
>>>>
>>>> After switching from 2.6.29.2 to 2.6.30-rc5 I get this new message
>>>> during boot of my home server:
>>>> Âsvc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
>>>
>>> Is this the only instance of this message, or do you see it several
>>> times?
>>
>> It's the only one.
>>
>>>> This looks to be the result of the following commit:
>>>> commit 363f724cdd3d2ae554e261be995abdeb15f7bdd9
>>>> Author: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ÂSUNRPC: rpcb_register() should handle errors silently
>>>> ÂMove error reporting for RPC registration to rpcb_register's
>>>> caller.
>>>>
>>>> Question is: do I really want to know this? I assume the "failure"
>>>> happened with previous kernels too, but silently.
>>>
>>> The point of that commit was to report errors _less_ frequently.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>>> The server-side RPC code is attempting to be more automatic about
>>> which address families are supported by kernel NFS services. ÂThis
>>> message tells us that some particular case is not handled yet. ÂI
>>> suspect you weren't seeing this error in the past at all.
>>
>> Correct. Neither this exact error, nor anything remotely similar.
>
> No, I meant that whether or not you saw an error message, the underlying
> condition probably was not occurring before 2.6.30.
>
>>> Can you report more about your server configuration? ÂWhat
>>> distribution is this?
>>
>> Debian stable (Lenny).
>> nfs-common and nfs-kernel-server (1.1.2)
>>
>> I'm using nfs4. rpc.statd is not running; rpc.mountd and rpc.idmapd are.
>
> The NFS client and server appear to start lockd listeners for NFSv4. ÂThey
> probably don't need to. ÂBut that's a separate issue.
>
>>> Does user space have portmapper or rpcbind?
>>
>> portmap (6.0)
>>
>>> Are you blacklisting ipv6.ko?
>>
>> No, the server has IPv6 enabled.
>> I'm using NFS mainly from my laptop though, which does not have an IPv6
>> address for my home network.
>>
>>> What's the output of "rpcinfo" on your server after it has started NFSD?
>>
>> I guess you mean the -p option?
>>
>> $ rpcinfo -p
>> Âprogram vers proto  port
>>  100000  Â2  tcp  Â111 Âportmapper
>>  100000  Â2  udp  Â111 Âportmapper
>>  100003  Â2  udp  2049 Ânfs
>>  100003  Â3  udp  2049 Ânfs
>>  100003  Â4  udp  2049 Ânfs
>> Â 100021 Â Â1 Â udp Â47955 Ânlockmgr
>> Â 100021 Â Â3 Â udp Â47955 Ânlockmgr
>> Â 100021 Â Â4 Â udp Â47955 Ânlockmgr
>> Â 100021 Â Â1 Â tcp Â41860 Ânlockmgr
>> Â 100021 Â Â3 Â tcp Â41860 Ânlockmgr
>> Â 100021 Â Â4 Â tcp Â41860 Ânlockmgr
>>  100003  Â2  tcp  2049 Ânfs
>>  100003  Â3  tcp  2049 Ânfs
>>  100003  Â4  tcp  2049 Ânfs
>> Â 100005 Â Â1 Â udp Â40032 Âmountd
>> Â 100005 Â Â1 Â tcp Â40623 Âmountd
>> Â 100005 Â Â2 Â udp Â40032 Âmountd
>> Â 100005 Â Â2 Â tcp Â40623 Âmountd
>> Â 100005 Â Â3 Â udp Â40032 Âmountd
>> Â 100005 Â Â3 Â tcp Â40623 Âmountd
>>  391002  Â2  tcp  Â792 Âsgi_fam
>
> In this case, it looks like the message can be treated as a notice. ÂI think
> in general we could safely make that a dprintk, but I'd like to wait a bit
> more to see if we catch any bad behavior.
>
> --
> Chuck Lever
> chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at Âhttp://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at Âhttp://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/