FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-18-2011, 07:57 PM
 
Default rhel nfs bug with 5.5 - nfsd: blocked for more then 120 sec

On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 2:01 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I ran into this bug on my NFS server which is serving an XFS fs;
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616833
>>
>> It was suggested using bind mounts.
>>
>> My current fstab on my server is;
>>
>> /dev/sdc1 /SHARE xfs defaults,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,uquota 1 2
>>
>> Unsure how to integrate bind mounts in this scheme to see if I can
>> avoid this bug until it is fixed.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> That's not the mount that matters. The suggestion had to do with
> loopback mounts where the same machine is a client. Those could be
> bind
> mounts, symlinks, or just pointed directly at the real location
> instead.
> If you aren't doing that you might just need more memory.

Thats odd as I have 12GB with 10GB free.

Thanks for the clarification.

Looks like this will not be an ez fix.

- aurf
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 04-27-2011, 06:20 PM
 
Default rhel nfs bug with 5.5 - nfsd: blocked for more then 120 sec

On Apr 18, 2011, at 12:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On 4/18/2011 2:01 PM, aurfalien@gmail.com wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I ran into this bug on my NFS server which is serving an XFS fs;
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=616833
>>
>> It was suggested using bind mounts.
>>
>> My current fstab on my server is;
>>
>> /dev/sdc1 /SHARE xfs defaults,noatime,nodiratime,logbufs=8,uquota 1 2
>>
>> Unsure how to integrate bind mounts in this scheme to see if I can
>> avoid this bug until it is fixed.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> That's not the mount that matters. The suggestion had to do with
> loopback mounts where the same machine is a client. Those could be
> bind
> mounts, symlinks, or just pointed directly at the real location
> instead.
> If you aren't doing that you might just need more memory.


Hi Les,

Just a quick follow up.

I ran into the issue a few times after posting and noted that I was
not short on memory.

I did update to 5.6 and the problem seems to have gone away.

I'm not real comfortable trying a bind mount as suggested in that bug
report as I can't really understand what it means to bind mount a
local volume.

- aurf
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:08 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org