Re: 3.0+ NFS issues

[Michael Tokarev]

I tried to debug this again, maybe to reproduce in a virtual machine,
and found out that it is only 32bit server code shows this issue:
after updating the kernel on the server to 64bit (the same version)
I can't reproduce this issue anymore.  Rebooting back to 32bit,
and voila, it is here again.

Something apparenlty isn't right on 32bits... ;)

(And yes, the prob is still present and is very annoying :)

Thanks,

/mjt


On 31.05.2012 17:51, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 31.05.2012 17:46, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 17:24 +0400, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> []
>>> I started tcpdump:
>>>
>>>  tcpdump -npvi br0 -s 0 host 192.168.88.4 and \( proto ICMP or port 2049 \) -w nfsdump
>>>
>>> on the client (192.168.88.2).  Next I mounted a directory on the client,
>>> and started reading (tar'ing) a directory into /dev/null.  It captured a
>>> few stalls.  Tcpdump shows number of packets it got, the stalls are at
>>> packet counts 58090, 97069 and 97071.  I cancelled the capture after that.
>>>
>>> The resulting file is available at http://www.corpit.ru/mjt/tmp/nfsdump.xz ,
>>> it is 220Mb uncompressed and 1.3Mb compressed.  The source files are
>>> 10 files of 1Gb each, all made by using `truncate' utility, so does not
>>> take place on disk at all.  This also makes it obvious that the issue
>>> does not depend on the speed of disk on the server (since in this case,
>>> the server disk isn't even in use).
>>
>> OK. So from the above file it looks as if the traffic is mainly READ
>> requests.
> 
> The issue here happens only with reads.
> 
>> In 2 places the server stops responding. In both cases, the client seems
>> to be sending a single TCP frame containing several COMPOUNDS containing
>> READ requests (which should be legal) just prior to the hang. When the
>> server doesn't respond, the client pings it with a RENEW, before it ends
>> up severing the TCP connection and then retransmitting.
> 
> And sometimes -- speaking only from the behavour I've seen, not from the
> actual frames sent -- server does not respond to the RENEW too, in which
> case the client reports "nfs server no responding", and on the next
> renew it may actually respond.  This happens too, but much more rare.
> 
> During these stalls, ie, when there's no network activity at all,
> the server NFSD threads are busy eating all available CPU.
> 
> What does it all tell us? :)
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> /mjt
> --
> 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/

--
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/