Prev: running a bash command with a timeout
Next: Change for the good, would not bring bad news (was:ReusingDVD+RW disks with cdrecord)
From: Chris Ahlstrom on 13 Jul 2010 06:41
Ignoramus15939 stopped playing his vuvuzela long enough to say:

> On 2010-07-13, Chris Ahlstrom <ahlstromc(a)launchmodem.com> wrote:
>> Ignoramus23418 stopped playing his vuvuzela long enough to say:
>>
>>> An update:
>>>
>>> Restart of the NFS daemon did not help.
>>>
>>> I restarted the secondary cluster server, then the primary (the
>>> secondary took over). Now everything is running great. I guess 485
>>> days is a bit too much for those servers to go at any one time.
>>
>> Would have been nice to figure out what part was causing the issue,
>> though. But the bottom line is you're good to go for another 485 days.
>
> I blame DRBD myself. After 485 more days, these servers need to be retired.

Looks like it is relatively new to the Linux kernel.

--
Proof techniques #2: Proof by Oddity.
Topics is be covered in future issues include proof by:
Intimidation
Gesticulation (handwaving)
"Try it; it works"
Constipation (I was just sitting there and ...)
Blatant assertion
Changing all the 2's to _n's
Mutual consent
Lack of a counterexample, and
"It stands to reason"
From: Greg Russell on 13 Jul 2010 17:26
"Ignoramus23418" <ignoramus23418(a)NOSPAM.23418.invalid> wrote in message
news:YMednSOvKo9LEqbRnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...

> An update:
>
> Restart of the NFS daemon did not help.

.... it sounds as if you ignored the portmap restart.


From: Ignoramus3537 on 13 Jul 2010 18:06
On 2010-07-13, Greg Russell <grussell(a)example.con> wrote:
> "Ignoramus23418" <ignoramus23418(a)NOSPAM.23418.invalid> wrote in message
> news:YMednSOvKo9LEqbRnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
>> An update:
>>
>> Restart of the NFS daemon did not help.
>
> ... it sounds as if you ignored the portmap restart.
>
>

You are correct. I forgot about it. That said, I would be surprised if
restarting it would help, since portmap is only used to set up a NFS
share. The troubled shares were all "permanent". I hope that I am not
mistaken.

What was stuck was NFSD instances writing to DRBD.

i
From: J G Miller on 13 Jul 2010 18:15
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:06:15 -0500, Ignoramus3537 wrote:
>
> What was stuck was NFSD instances writing to DRBD.]

Would changing to NFSv4 using TCP rather than NFSv3 with UDP
avoid the problem?


From: Ignoramus3537 on 13 Jul 2010 19:31
On 2010-07-13, J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:06:15 -0500, Ignoramus3537 wrote:
>>
>> What was stuck was NFSD instances writing to DRBD.]
>
> Would changing to NFSv4 using TCP rather than NFSv3 with UDP
> avoid the problem?

I would think, not if DRBD is the culprit. It is the underlying media
for writing.

i
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: running a bash command with a timeout
Next: Change for the good, would not bring bad news (was:ReusingDVD+RW disks with cdrecord)