Re: NewNFS vs. oldNFS for 10.0?

On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 01:43:24PM +0100, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> 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?
> 

I'll add this to my work queue :)

- Peter