Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

On 15.03.2013 15:08, Rick Macklem wrote:
> Lars Eggert wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> this reminds me that I ran into an issue lately with the new NFS and
>> locking for NFSv3 mounts on a client that ran -CURRENT and a server
>> that ran -STABLE.
>>
>> When I ran "portmaster -a" on the client, which mounted /usr/ports and
>> /usr/local, as well as the location of the respective sqlite databases
>> over NFSv3, the client network stack became unresponsive on all
>> interfaces for 30 or so seconds and e.g. SSH connections broke. The
>> serial console remained active throughout, and the system didn't
>> crash. About a minute after the wedgie I could SSH into the box again,
>> too.
>>
>> The issue went away when I killed lockd on the client, but that caused
>> the sqlite database to become corrupted over time. The workaround for
>> me was to move to NFSv4, which has been working fine. (One more reason
>> to make it the default...)
>>
> I've mentioned limitations w.r.t. the design of the NLM protocol (rpc.lockd)
> before. Any time there is any kind of network topology issue, it will run
> into difficulties. There may also be other issues.
>
> However, since both the old and new client use the same rpc.lockd in the
> same way (the new one just cribbed the code from the old one), I think
> the same problem would exist for the old one. As such, I don't believe
> this is a regression.

Maybe we can talk Peter Holm into periodically running his file system
stress test suite against NFS too?  :-)  Peter?

-- 
Andre