Re: nfs server /home not responding
In response to Lucas Wang : > > We use NFS to store /home directory for users in our lab. > However, we occasionally get blocked from logging in because > the automount daemon on a NFS client machine hangs. When > that happens, we get this error message on the NFS client machine > called "bucks" in its system logs: > Aug 24 10:53:40 bucks kernel: nfs server pid...@bucks:/home: not responding > > pid670 is the amd process. > > Our NFS server(raptors) has the following configuration: > FreeBSD raptors.cs.ucla.edu 7.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-PRERELEASE #0: Tue Feb > 9 12:59:50 PST 2010 > r...@raptors.cs.ucla.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/RAPTORS amd64 > > And the client machine is configured as: > FreeBSD bucks.cs.ucla.edu 7.3-PRERELEASE FreeBSD 7.3-PRERELEASE #0: Tue Feb > 9 20:47:50 UTC 2010 r...@bucks.cs.ucla.edu:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/BUCKS > amd64 > > Another thing I want to add is that several other NFS client machines > also hang from time to time. But they don't usually hang at the same time. > Even though rebooting can fix the problem once, we don't want it keep hurting > us. > > So any insights or suggestions will be greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot. Do you have dumbtimer in the options for the nfs mount? My research into this indicated that the NFS client keeps track of average response times from the server. If the server starts to respond significantly slower than is expected, the code assumes that the server is down and the mount freezes and that message appears in the logs. Usually, after a short wait (a few minutes) the connection resumes and you see a "server is alive again message". See man mount_nfs for more info. Also, try switching to TCP mounts. If you have a network that occasionally gets hit with traffic spikes that cause data packets to take abnormally long to travel, or an NFS server that occasionally gets usage spikes that cause it to respond slowly, this will happen. In addition to dumbtimer you can also look at better segmenting your network, or increasing the capacity of the NFS server to prevent the problem. If the NFS hangs occur and the mount never recovers (even after several minutes) then you probably have a different problem. Possibly a firewall is losing the state table and thus the connection is going bad? -- Bill Moran http://www.potentialtech.com http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: NFS server not responding/is alive again
At 10:55 AM 5/3/2007, you wrote: Hi-- Janos Dohanics wrote: I have a FreeBSD 4.11 machine which mounts a volume from a Netapp ONTap. The FreeBSD machine also acts as a Samba PDC. The Samba volumes are in the NFS-mounted volume. There are about a dozen Win2K workstations on the network served by the Samba server. Lately I have noticed that /var/log/messages is full with entries like: ... /kernel: nfs server filer01:/vol/vol0/psa: not responding ... /kernel: nfs server filer01:/vol/vol0/psa: is alive again It seems that the server sometimes is unresponsive for less than a second, many other times it's unresponsive for a number of seconds (as many as 8 seconds). In order to proceed, it would help to run a tcpdump between the NFS server and this FreeBSD machine, and take a look at the packets just before one of these errors is logged, and try to correlate with anything else in your logs (ie, a particular Samba client did something or saw an error as a result). Use something like: tcpdump -w packet.dmp -s 0 host filer01 and host localhost ... and read via "tcpdump -r packet.dmp". Chuck, I did tcpdump -w packet.dmp -s 0 host filer01 and host localhost for a couple of minutes: # tcpdump -w packet.dmp -s 0 host filer01 and host localhost tcpdump: listening on dc0 ^C 639 packets received by filter 0 packets dropped by kernel ... tcpdump -r packet.dmp gives zero output. What does this tell you? Note that Samba is going to be happier serving from local disks; it would be better for the clients to mount against filer01 directly than to "forward" a remote filesystem via this NFS->CIFS/SMB bridge... I'm sure you are right and I'd change it given the opportunity... Janos ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server not responding/is alive again
Hi-- Janos Dohanics wrote: I have a FreeBSD 4.11 machine which mounts a volume from a Netapp ONTap. The FreeBSD machine also acts as a Samba PDC. The Samba volumes are in the NFS-mounted volume. There are about a dozen Win2K workstations on the network served by the Samba server. Lately I have noticed that /var/log/messages is full with entries like: ... /kernel: nfs server filer01:/vol/vol0/psa: not responding ... /kernel: nfs server filer01:/vol/vol0/psa: is alive again It seems that the server sometimes is unresponsive for less than a second, many other times it's unresponsive for a number of seconds (as many as 8 seconds). In order to proceed, it would help to run a tcpdump between the NFS server and this FreeBSD machine, and take a look at the packets just before one of these errors is logged, and try to correlate with anything else in your logs (ie, a particular Samba client did something or saw an error as a result). Use something like: tcpdump -w packet.dmp -s 0 host filer01 and host localhost ... and read via "tcpdump -r packet.dmp". Note that Samba is going to be happier serving from local disks; it would be better for the clients to mount against filer01 directly than to "forward" a remote filesystem via this NFS->CIFS/SMB bridge... -- -Chuck ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not working with 6.2-RELEASE
On Saturday 13 January 2007 17:47, Jonathan Horne wrote: > On 1/13/07, Jay Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jonathan Horne wrote: > > > updated my NFS server to 6.2-RELEASE last night. today, i find that > > > freebsd > > > or linux clinets alike, are all getting: > > > > > > athena:/usr/src: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Timed out > > > > > > i cant think of what to check. the nfs server has this in the > > > /etc/rc.conf: > > > > > > rpcbind_enable="YES" > > > nfs_server_enable="YES" > > > mountd_flags="-r" > > > > > > my uname: > > > FreeBSD athena.dfwlp.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 > > > 19:53:23 CST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ATHENA > > > i386 > > > > > > my /etc/exports: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/exports > > > /usr -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 > > > /opt -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 > > > > > > frustrating as all get out, as im troubleshooting another totally > > > enigmatic > > > problem on both of my linux servers (which i wont bother to post about > > > here). but since my BSD box is my file server, im needing to get into > > > those > > > NFS mounts, so one problem is preventing the other from being solved. > > > > > > if anyone can help me shed light on this, i would really appreciated > > > it. > > > > > > thanks, > > > jonathan > > > ___ > > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > > > Check /var/log./messages and /var/log/dmesg for anything irregular. > > > > -- > > Jay Chandler > > Network Administrator, Chapman University > > 714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Today's Excuse: dynamic software linking table corrupted > > well i may have come up with one possibility, my temporary dns server only > has copied of my forward domains, and not my reverse. as soon as i have my > main DNS servers back online again, ill be retesting. well, it turns out, that i totally "newb'd" myself. long story short... i build myself an emergency DNS server, and since i planned only to use it while my main DNS servers were down (and, when they are down, they are both usually down at the same time), i didnt replicate my reverse zones over to it, only my forward zones. turns out, nfs requires the reverse record or it doesnt seem to work right anymore. in my typical fashion... i spent days troubleshooting all the most complicated configurations that could be throwing me a monkey wrench (culminating with a reinstall of my VMware Server)... instead of starting with the easiest thing first. as i laugh as myself, Jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not working with 6.2-RELEASE
On 1/13/07, Jay Chandler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jonathan Horne wrote: > updated my NFS server to 6.2-RELEASE last night. today, i find that > freebsd > or linux clinets alike, are all getting: > > athena:/usr/src: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Timed out > > i cant think of what to check. the nfs server has this in the > /etc/rc.conf: > > rpcbind_enable="YES" > nfs_server_enable="YES" > mountd_flags="-r" > > my uname: > FreeBSD athena.dfwlp.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 > 19:53:23 CST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ATHENA > i386 > > my /etc/exports: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/exports > /usr -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 > /opt -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 > > frustrating as all get out, as im troubleshooting another totally > enigmatic > problem on both of my linux servers (which i wont bother to post about > here). but since my BSD box is my file server, im needing to get into > those > NFS mounts, so one problem is preventing the other from being solved. > > if anyone can help me shed light on this, i would really appreciated it. > > thanks, > jonathan > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Check /var/log./messages and /var/log/dmesg for anything irregular. -- Jay Chandler Network Administrator, Chapman University 714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's Excuse: dynamic software linking table corrupted well i may have come up with one possibility, my temporary dns server only has copied of my forward domains, and not my reverse. as soon as i have my main DNS servers back online again, ill be retesting. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not working with 6.2-RELEASE
Jonathan Horne wrote: updated my NFS server to 6.2-RELEASE last night. today, i find that freebsd or linux clinets alike, are all getting: athena:/usr/src: RPCPROG_MNT: RPC: Timed out i cant think of what to check. the nfs server has this in the /etc/rc.conf: rpcbind_enable="YES" nfs_server_enable="YES" mountd_flags="-r" my uname: FreeBSD athena.dfwlp.com 6.2-RELEASE FreeBSD 6.2-RELEASE #0: Fri Jan 12 19:53:23 CST 2007 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/ATHENA i386 my /etc/exports: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# cat /etc/exports /usr -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 /opt -alldirs -maproot=root -network=192.168.1 -mask=255.255.255.0 frustrating as all get out, as im troubleshooting another totally enigmatic problem on both of my linux servers (which i wont bother to post about here). but since my BSD box is my file server, im needing to get into those NFS mounts, so one problem is preventing the other from being solved. if anyone can help me shed light on this, i would really appreciated it. thanks, jonathan ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" Check /var/log./messages and /var/log/dmesg for anything irregular. -- Jay Chandler Network Administrator, Chapman University 714.628.7249 / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Today's Excuse: dynamic software linking table corrupted ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
DSA - JCR wrote: I have read it and downloaded, but it seems to be something obsolete (v. 3.5 is from 2004) and I suspect they hasn't made nothing new. It supports NFSv3 and TCP mounts which (right now) is all you want. We'll see if MS start to support NFSv4, but right now, IIRC, even BSD may not support that fully. The thing about software, is that if it works, it doesn't need updating. NFS does not get 38 new features a fortnight so doesn't need patching all the time. If the software worked in 2004, and the standard didn't change, MS would have no need to update anything. I cannot say that MS NFS works fine, because I am still evaluating it myself. I can say that googling *didn't* turn up millions of problems. So it's probably the case that since this is a relatively straightforward protocol with a well defined standard (RFC), even MS could find competent programmers to implement it. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
On Jun 20, 2006, at 2:04 AM, Olivier Nicole wrote: Can I have the two? NFS and Samba? There is no reason you can't. I run NFS between Unix machines and Samba with MS world. But there could be strange results if on Xp machines connects to the same file using both NFS and Samba at same time. Olivier I would think that the hosting OS would know how to deal with both, since NFS mounts are treated no differently from Samba mounts superficially (each has their own separate drive letter, etc). Cygwin also offers an NFS client if you want to look into that as well. SFU offers mount_nfs/nfsd for windows, which is basically unheard of using anything else. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
> Can I have the two? NFS and Samba? There is no reason you can't. I run NFS between Unix machines and Samba with MS world. But there could be strange results if on Xp machines connects to the same file using both NFS and Samba at same time. Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
HI all and thanks for your answers My main goal is to have a system in which the local network can get access to the file repository, and also thay can get access from their homes to them (only get a file from server, work on it, and post it to the server). For this reason I thougth in NFS only and FTP for remote access. As the pc clients runs on Windows XP, they are ingeniers and have programs for MS, I think I must install Samba, but NFS is (I think) stronger than Samba in protecting files. Can I have the two? NFS and Samba? BTW, the last version of UFS (NFS of MS) is 3.5 of 2004. I don't know if will fit correctly. best regards Juan Coruña Desarrollo de Software Atlantico ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
>> >> I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network >> for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows >> boxes. >> >> Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? >> I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. >> > >I've never actually done this, but I read about it because it is something >I want to do, at least temporarily, as I migrate from Windows to FreeBSD. >(Ironically all the Microsft documentation on the subject assumes you are >migrating the other way!) However, I think you need to search Microsoft's >site, and look up how to install their 'Client for NFS' (or 'Gateway for >NFS' depending on your network) > I have read it and downloaded, but it seems to be something obsolete (v. 3.5 is from 2004) and I suspect they hasn't made nothing new. BTW, Not only assumes you are migrating to MS, but also says it is cheaper MS world than UNIX world !!! ;D incredible !!! best regards Juan Coruña Desarrollo de Software Atlantico ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
On Jun 19, 2006, at 3:38 PM, FBSD_UG wrote: On 19 jun 2006, at 22:17, DSA - JCR wrote: Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. Windows doesn't understand NFS; this is almost purely a Unix creation. I suggest installing Samba if you have a large number of machines (mostly that you do not control), which need access to the fileserver or for clients that aren't incredibly computer-savvy since you won't need to provide many more instructions than what's already available for installing the software and configuring/mounting shares. Plus, there are many tie-ins for kerberos, etc so you won't have to deal with setting up or working around a kludgy authentication system (sort of an issue with SFU as mentioned below). This might come in handy too: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/opssfu.mspx That is a good solution, but you don't want to have to require more than 10+ machines to have this installing since users will start griping and this may create more of a headache for you than it's worth. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
On 19 jun 2006, at 22:17, DSA - JCR wrote: Hi all I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows boxes. Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. best regards and thanks in advance Juan Coruña Desarrollo de Software Atlantico This might come in handy too: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/interopmigration/unix/sfu/opssfu.mspx Arno___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006, DSA - JCR wrote: >Hi all > >I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network >for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows >boxes. > >Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? >I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. AFAIK Windows requires additional software to access NFS file systems. Samba makes directories available to Windows' native networking so requires no additional software on Windows. Bill -- INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC URL: http://www.celestial.com/ PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way FAX:(206) 232-9186 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676 ``People from East Germany have found the West so confusing. It's so much easier when you have only one party.'' -- Linus Torvalde, Linux Expo Canada when asked about confusion over many Linux distributions. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
DSA - JCR wrote: > Hi all > > I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network > for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows > boxes. > > Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? > I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. There is a commercial solution called "Reflection" by WRQ. Reflection is a suite of tools to access Unix services from Windows boxes. http://www.wrq.com/products/reflection/nfs_client/ Best regards Jona ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
On Mon, June 19, 2006 9:17 pm, DSA - JCR wrote: > Hi all > > > I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network > for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows > boxes. > > Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? > I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. > > > > best regards and thanks in advance > > Juan Coruña > Desarrollo de Software Atlantico I've never actually done this, but I read about it because it is something I want to do, at least temporarily, as I migrate from Windows to FreeBSD. (Ironically all the Microsft documentation on the subject assumes you are migrating the other way!) However, I think you need to search Microsoft's site, and look up how to install their 'Client for NFS' (or 'Gateway for NFS' depending on your network) ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS Server and MS Windows
DSA - JCR wrote: Hi all I am mounting a NFS server (FreeBSD 6.1 "amd64") for a MS Windows Network for a customer and I see that I can not see the NFS server from windows boxes. Must I install Samba for that? or anything in the MS Windows boxes? I thougth that Windows understand NFS but seems to be not. I'm not sure if you *must* install Samba, but I am not aware of an alternative OTTOMH. Windows speaks SMB by default; anything else would be an "add in". We use Samba successfully at most of our locations. Kevin Kinsey -- Don't try to have the last word -- you might get it. -- Lazarus Long ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server not responding, new in 6.0
David Kirchner wrote: We recently replaced FreeBSD 4.5 with 6.0-RELEASE on a pair of servers. One of the servers runs rsync to copy its contents to the other server, over a NFS mount. Everything worked just fine under 4.5, but with 6.0, we're seeing dozens of these errors every rsync: May 2 14:00:59 xxx1 kernel: nfs server xxx2:/usr: not responding IIUC, why not rsync directly to the other server and bypass NFS; see if that works better. --Alex ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server not responding, new in 6.0
"David Kirchner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We recently replaced FreeBSD 4.5 with 6.0-RELEASE on a pair of servers. > One of the servers runs rsync to copy its contents to the other server, > over a NFS mount. Everything worked just fine under 4.5, but with 6.0, > we're seeing dozens of these errors every rsync: > > May 2 14:00:59 xxx1 kernel: nfs server xxx2:/usr: not responding > > The rsync does eventually complete successfully. The NFS client system > uses the em0 driver on a gigabit port, and the NFS server system uses > the fxp0 driver on a 100Mbit/full duplex port. The client system > doesn't come close to 100Mbit during the rsync (or otherwise) -- more > like 5Mbit. Neither server is what I'd consider "busy" -- they're actually > basically idle unless this script or some crons are running. Make absolutely sure that the em card is set to the correct speed/duplex settings. If not, manually bypass the autodetection and set the speed and duplex. We've been seeing a lot of em cards on gigabit misdetect the speed and duplex. The symptoms are lousy performance in some cases, and outright failure in others. In each case, manually setting the speed/duplex fixes the problem and all is well. > We're using NFSv3 soft, interruptable mounts. We've tried using TCP and > UDP, and have tried different -r and -w sizes, up to 32768 each. We've tried > it with and without nfsiod. Looks like you've already tried a lot of things. > We haven't tried changing the mount_nfs -D option, because that seems > like it would only serve to mask the real problem, whatever that is. I agree. > a) Is this a real problem, or simply a reporting problem? What exactly is it > reporting if it's not a real problem? Sure is a real problem. Unless you've got serious network congestion, in which case it's still a problem, just not with NFS. > b) If you've had this trouble before, what settings have you used to fix it? Looks like you've already tried all the NFS tweaks I could think to recommend. Hopefully the media settings will help. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server
On 6 Jan 2006, at 16:33, Michael P. Soulier wrote: On 1/6/06, Webster, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Michael, If /usr/local/www is not a mount point, this will not work. You need to put the mount point (eg: /usr) in /etc/exports, and add the option -alldirs to allow it to mount a subdirectory of the mount point. It would appear that my configuration was correct in fact, but restarting nfsd was not enough. Restarting mountd picked up the new config and it's now working. Yep, it's mountd that reads /etc/exports. If you change that file in future, you just need to restart mountd and not nfsd. Ceri ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server
On 1/6/06, Webster, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Michael, > > If /usr/local/www is not a mount point, this will not work. You need to > put the mount point (eg: /usr) in /etc/exports, and add the option > -alldirs to allow it to mount a subdirectory of the mount point. It would appear that my configuration was correct in fact, but restarting nfsd was not enough. Restarting mountd picked up the new config and it's now working. Thanks, Mike -- Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server
On 1/6/06, Michael Landin Hostbaek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Look alright. > After adding the line to /etc/exports - mountd(8) needs to re-read the > file. So do: > > # kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/mountd.pid` > > You can also use 'showmount -e' to see the configured exports list. Hmm. I restarted nfsd, but apparently that wasn't enough. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ showmount -e Exports list on localhost: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/mountd.pid` Password: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ showmount -e Exports list on localhost: /usr/local/www 192.168.1.0 Now it shows up. Lets try the client. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ sudo mount /mnt/kangawww Password: Aha. That worked. Thanks muchly. Mike -- Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server
Michael P. Soulier (msoulier) writes: > Hello, > > I'm configuring nfsd on my freebsd box, and trying to mount from my > linux box. I keep getting permission denied on the linux side, and I'm > not sure why. > > My local network is 192.168.1.0/24. > > I've added this to /etc/exports. > > /usr/local/www -network 192.168.1.0 -mask 255.255.255.0 Look alright. After adding the line to /etc/exports - mountd(8) needs to re-read the file. So do: # kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/mountd.pid` You can also use 'showmount -e' to see the configured exports list. /mich ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: nfs server
Michael, If /usr/local/www is not a mount point, this will not work. You need to put the mount point (eg: /usr) in /etc/exports, and add the option -alldirs to allow it to mount a subdirectory of the mount point. Andrew -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael P. Soulier Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:03 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: nfs server Hello, I'm configuring nfsd on my freebsd box, and trying to mount from my linux box. I keep getting permission denied on the linux side, and I'm not sure why. My local network is 192.168.1.0/24. I've added this to /etc/exports. /usr/local/www -network 192.168.1.0 -mask 255.255.255.0 My client from 192.168.1.3 is trying to mount /usr/local/www, and it's getting permission denied from the nfs server, so I'm assuming that my /etc/exports is somehow misconfigured. Can anyone help me with this? I'm not used to BSD-style exports. Thanks, Mike -- Michael P. Soulier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." --Albert Einstein ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ** The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager or the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies. ** eSafe scanned this email for viruses, vandals and malicious content. ** ** ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server overload (nfsd)
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 11:19:10AM +0100, Angel Blazquez wrote: > Hello, > > We are expecting incredible overload in a NFS server. A top shows nfsd > consuming most of the CPU: > > PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZERES STATE C TIME WCPUCPU COMMAND > 6000 root -80 1204K 660K biord 1 124:15 27.88% 27.88% nfsd > 6002 root 40 1204K 660K *Giant 0 124:18 17.58% 17.58% nfsd > 6006 root 40 1204K 660K *Giant 0 123:38 10.21% 10.21% nfsd > 6005 root 40 1204K 660K *Giant 0 123:36 7.47% 7.47% nfsd > 6003 root 40 1204K 660K *Giant 0 123:08 4.15% 4.15% nfsd > 6001 root 40 1204K 660K *Giant 0 123:16 2.83% 2.83% nfsd > > Memory looks fine: > > Mem: 27M Active, 910M Inact, 136M Wired, 51M Cache, 112M Buf, 1828K Free > Swap: 2048M Total, 72K Used, 2048M Free > > Typing in the nfs server (console/ssh) becomes terrible, the server does > not reply well. > > We are running this nfs server in FreeBSD 5.3-RELEASE-p23 on a Compaq > Proliant server with a Compaq Smart Array 5300 that comunicates with a > array of disks: You will experience *much* better performance if you upgrade to 6.0. Kris pgpo1hYcKaQ0M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nfs server amd problems
:-) I have many restrictions in my network and i can't use cvs or cvsup to update my port or src tree :-( the only way it's CTM fortunally it exists i hope that never disapear... ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server amd problems
Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2005 10:32 schrieb Osmany Guirola Cruz: > I am using -stable and i do the upgrade via CTM > in the freebsd site the last ctm is src-5.0393.gz 06/09/05 > i hope that with this was sufficient to solve the problem ;-) > this are the affected file with the ctm file 92 and 93 > > > FS .ctm_status > > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-bgp.c > > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-isoclns.c > > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-ldp.c > > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-rsvp.c > > FN gnu/usr.bin/gzip/gzip.c > > FS .ctm_status > > FN share/man/man4/fwohci.4 > > FN sys/dev/acpica/acpi_ec.c > > FN sys/kern/uipc_socket.c ^ That's the culprit. It should be 1.208.2.20 then everything is fine. -Harry P.S.: I've never done CTM, interesting that it's still used :) > > FN sys/netinet/raw_ip.c > > FN sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c > > FN sys/netinet6/udp6_usrreq.c > > What do you think? or i have to wait for next ctm files.. i don't want > compile userland and kernel twice...:-) > > Thanks > > Osmany > > On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 13:55 +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > > Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2005 09:51 schrieb Osmany Guirola Cruz: > > > Hi people > > > > > > I have installed a 5.3 STABLE box with automount(amd) daemon > > > working perfectly with the defaults flags(/net /host) and the nfs > > > server exporting only my home. all this work but then i upgrade > > > my system to 5.4 and problems began > > > > 5.4-RELEASE or -Stable? For the last three days there was a mis-merge > > in the tree which was corrected today. That caused NFS to fail. If you > > use -stable just re-cvsup otherwise hope that somone else can help > > you. > > > > -Harry > > > > > my exports in (draco my machine) said > > > /usr/home/iris > > > and from iris when i go to /net/draco/ i got this error > > > > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > > > ls: /net/draco/: Resource temporarily unavailable > > > that works perfectly before the upgrade > > > in iris the problem is only with my machine draco(nfsserver) i can > > > automount other things in other machines > > > > > > now the amd daemon in my machine does not want to work :-( > > > in iris i have this in the /etc/exports > > > > > > /usr/home draco > > > > > > and in draco i have this error > > > > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > > > ls: /net/iris/: Resource temporarily unavailable > > > > > > all this things happens after the upgrade > > > i don't know where is the problem the configuration files are the > > > same i have this line in my rc.conf > > > mountd_enable="YES" > > > rpcbind_enable="YES" > > > nfs_server_enable="YES" > > > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" > > > amd_enable="YES" > > > amd_flags="-a /.amd_mnt -l syslog /host /etc/amd.map /net > > > /etc/amd.map" > > > > > > What should i do? where i can't find the problem > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Osmany > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" pgpNTjuhZe99f.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nfs server amd problems
I am using -stable and i do the upgrade via CTM in the freebsd site the last ctm is src-5.0393.gz 06/09/05 i hope that with this was sufficient to solve the problem ;-) this are the affected file with the ctm file 92 and 93 > FS .ctm_status > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-bgp.c > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-isoclns.c > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-ldp.c > FN contrib/tcpdump/print-rsvp.c > FN gnu/usr.bin/gzip/gzip.c > FS .ctm_status > FN share/man/man4/fwohci.4 > FN sys/dev/acpica/acpi_ec.c > FN sys/kern/uipc_socket.c > FN sys/netinet/raw_ip.c > FN sys/netinet/tcp_usrreq.c > FN sys/netinet6/udp6_usrreq.c What do you think? or i have to wait for next ctm files.. i don't want compile userland and kernel twice...:-) Thanks Osmany On Fri, 2005-06-10 at 13:55 +0200, Emanuel Strobl wrote: > Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2005 09:51 schrieb Osmany Guirola Cruz: > > Hi people > > > > I have installed a 5.3 STABLE box with automount(amd) daemon working > > perfectly with the defaults flags(/net /host) and the nfs server > > exporting only my home. all this work but then i upgrade my system > > to 5.4 and problems began > > 5.4-RELEASE or -Stable? For the last three days there was a mis-merge in > the tree which was corrected today. That caused NFS to fail. If you use > -stable just re-cvsup otherwise hope that somone else can help you. > > -Harry > > > my exports in (draco my machine) said > > /usr/home/ iris > > and from iris when i go to /net/draco/ i got this error > > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > > ls: /net/draco/: Resource temporarily unavailable > > that works perfectly before the upgrade > > in iris the problem is only with my machine draco(nfsserver) i can > > automount other things in other machines > > > > now the amd daemon in my machine does not want to work :-( > > in iris i have this in the /etc/exports > > > > /usr/home draco > > > > and in draco i have this error > > > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > > ls: /net/iris/: Resource temporarily unavailable > > > > all this things happens after the upgrade > > i don't know where is the problem the configuration files are the same > > i have this line in my rc.conf > > mountd_enable="YES" > > rpcbind_enable="YES" > > nfs_server_enable="YES" > > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" > > amd_enable="YES" > > amd_flags="-a /.amd_mnt -l syslog /host /etc/amd.map /net /etc/amd.map" > > > > What should i do? where i can't find the problem > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Osmany > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server amd problems
Am Freitag, 10. Juni 2005 09:51 schrieb Osmany Guirola Cruz: > Hi people > > I have installed a 5.3 STABLE box with automount(amd) daemon working > perfectly with the defaults flags(/net /host) and the nfs server > exporting only my home. all this work but then i upgrade my system > to 5.4 and problems began 5.4-RELEASE or -Stable? For the last three days there was a mis-merge in the tree which was corrected today. That caused NFS to fail. If you use -stable just re-cvsup otherwise hope that somone else can help you. -Harry > my exports in (draco my machine) said > /usr/home/iris > and from iris when i go to /net/draco/ i got this error > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > ls: /net/draco/: Resource temporarily unavailable > that works perfectly before the upgrade > in iris the problem is only with my machine draco(nfsserver) i can > automount other things in other machines > > now the amd daemon in my machine does not want to work :-( > in iris i have this in the /etc/exports > > /usr/home draco > > and in draco i have this error > > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: not responding > nfs server [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/net: is alive again > ls: /net/iris/: Resource temporarily unavailable > > all this things happens after the upgrade > i don't know where is the problem the configuration files are the same > i have this line in my rc.conf > mountd_enable="YES" > rpcbind_enable="YES" > nfs_server_enable="YES" > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" > amd_enable="YES" > amd_flags="-a /.amd_mnt -l syslog /host /etc/amd.map /net /etc/amd.map" > > What should i do? where i can't find the problem > > Thanks > > > Osmany > > > > > ___ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" pgproqwJBxm6t.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bill Moran wrote: "Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bill Moran wrote: What kind of network topology is between the two machines? Do you notice a high load on the hub/switch/routers during these activities? You may be able to improve the intervening network topology to improve the problem as well. My bad ... I thought i had mentioned it in the original ... the nfs mount is from local machine to local machine, to do what nullfs normally would provide were I to risk it ... namely, to get at the 'bottom layer' of a unionfs based storage system ... Well ... that's just weird. I guess the same problem could apply: if the loopback slows down when the kernel is loaded, it could cause the same effect. Have you tried forcing TCP mounts? IIRC, that's what solved the problem for me. Haven't tried yet, but will ... thanks :) Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
"Marc G. Fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bill Moran wrote: > > > What kind of network topology is between the two machines? Do you > > notice a high load on the hub/switch/routers during these activities? > > You may be able to improve the intervening network topology to improve > > the problem as well. > > My bad ... I thought i had mentioned it in the original ... the nfs mount > is from local machine to local machine, to do what nullfs normally would > provide were I to risk it ... namely, to get at the 'bottom layer' of a > unionfs based storage system ... Well ... that's just weird. I guess the same problem could apply: if the loopback slows down when the kernel is loaded, it could cause the same effect. Have you tried forcing TCP mounts? IIRC, that's what solved the problem for me. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bill Moran wrote: What kind of network topology is between the two machines? Do you notice a high load on the hub/switch/routers during these activities? You may be able to improve the intervening network topology to improve the problem as well. My bad ... I thought i had mentioned it in the original ... the nfs mount is from local machine to local machine, to do what nullfs normally would provide were I to risk it ... namely, to get at the 'bottom layer' of a unionfs based storage system ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Alex de Kruijff wrote: I think you're problem is not that you disk is used havely but that you're NIC (rsync kinda does that) is. The warnings you get indicate that you're computer can't get a responce from you're server. It acts normaly as soon as it can. Except, the nfs mount is from the local host to the local host ... Why do you have rsync sync mounted nfs disks? I want to get at the unlying file system ... I have a real file system mounted as /vm, which /vm mounted as /du via nfs ... over top of /vm, I have several unionfs's mounted ... if I did a du of '/vm/dir', where dir is a union mount, I'd see all files on both "layers" ... if I do a du of '/du/dir', I only see the /vm layer ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
Alex de Kruijff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:22:30AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > > > I'm using an nfs mount to get at the underlying file system on a system > > that uses unionfs mounts ... instead of using nullfs, which, last time I > > used it over a year ago, caused the server to crash to no end ... > > > > But, as soon as there is any 'load', I'm getting a whack of: > > > > Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not > > responding > > Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive > > again > > Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not > > responding > > Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive > > again In my experience, this is caused by the server responding unpredictably. Someone smarter than me may correct me, but I believe the nfs client keeps track of how quickly the NFS server responds, and uses it to judge whether the server is still working or not. Any time the server's response time varies too much from that amount, the client will assume the server is down, but if the server is not down, you'll see the "is alive" message immediately after. Basically, during normal usage, the server is responding very quickly, so the client assumes it will always respond that fast. Then, under heavy load, the slower response makes the client a little paranoid. I've seen this when running NFS over WiFi, where the ping times are usually not consistent. One thing is to just ignore the messages and accept that this is a natural side effect of high loads. Another would be to use TCP mounts instead of UDP mounts, which don't have this trouble. What kind of network topology is between the two machines? Do you notice a high load on the hub/switch/routers during these activities? You may be able to improve the intervening network topology to improve the problem as well. > > > > in /var/log/messages ... > > > > I'm running nfsd with the standard flags: > > > > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" > > > > Is there something that I can do to reduce this problem? increase number > > of nfsd processes? force a tcp connection? > > You could try giving the nfsd processes more priority as root with > rtprio. If the file /var/run/nfsd.pid exist then you could try something > like: rtprio 10 -`cat /var/run/nfds.pid`. > > You could also try giving the other porcesses less priority like > nice -n 2 rsync. But i'm am not show how this works at the other end. > > > The issue is more prevalent when I have >4 processes trying to read from > > the nfs mounts ... should there be one mount per process? the process(es) > > in question are rsync, if that helps ... they tend to be a bit more 'disk > > intensive' then most processes, which is why I thought of increasing -n > > ... Might help. I would look at networking before I looked at disk usage ... are there dropped packets and the like. But it could be either. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again
On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:22:30AM -0300, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > I'm using an nfs mount to get at the underlying file system on a system > that uses unionfs mounts ... instead of using nullfs, which, last time I > used it over a year ago, caused the server to crash to no end ... > > But, as soon as there is any 'load', I'm getting a whack of: > > Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not > responding > Oct 3 22:46:16 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive > again > Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: not > responding > Oct 3 22:48:30 neptune /kernel: nfs server neptune.hub.org:/vm: is alive > again > > in /var/log/messages ... > > I'm running nfsd with the standard flags: > > nfs_server_flags="-u -t -n 4" > > Is there something that I can do to reduce this problem? increase number > of nfsd processes? force a tcp connection? You could try giving the nfsd processes more priority as root with rtprio. If the file /var/run/nfsd.pid exist then you could try something like: rtprio 10 -`cat /var/run/nfds.pid`. You could also try giving the other porcesses less priority like nice -n 2 rsync. But i'm am not show how this works at the other end. > The issue is more prevalent when I have >4 processes trying to read from > the nfs mounts ... should there be one mount per process? the process(es) > in question are rsync, if that helps ... they tend to be a bit more 'disk > intensive' then most processes, which is why I thought of increasing -n > ... I think you're problem is not that you disk is used havely but that you're NIC (rsync kinda does that) is. The warnings you get indicate that you're computer can't get a responce from you're server. It acts normaly as soon as it can. Why do you have rsync sync mounted nfs disks? -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/FreeBSD/ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
** Reply to note from "adp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mon, 31 May 2004 12:33:24 -0500 > I was thinking that > since NFS is udp-based, that if the primary NFS server failed, and the > secondary assumed the primary NFS server's IP address, that things would at > least return to normal (of course, any writes that had been in progress > would fail horribly). That doesn't seem to be the case. During a test we > killed the main NFS server and brought up the NFS IP as an alias on the > backup. Didn't work. Has anyone tried anything like this? The idea makes me shiver, as I'm quite sure there would be data losses. However, if you are so brave... have you tried freevrrpd? The problem might be that clients still have that IP associated with the old MAC address in their tables. VRRP is a protocol designed to handel failovers that should also deal with this, by changing the IP *and* the MAC address of the card. bye av. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
On Sun, 30 May 2004 02:43:37 -0500 "adp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am running a FreeBSD 4.9-REL NFS server. Once every several hours our main > NFS server replicates everything to a backup FreeBSD NFS server. We are okay > with the gap in time between replication. What we aren't sure about is how > to automate the fail-over between the primary to the secondary NFS server. > This is for a web cluster. Each client mounts several directories from the > NFS server. > > Let's say that our primary NFS server dies and just goes away. What then? > Are you periodically doing a mount or a file look-up of a mounted filesystem > to check if your NFS server died? If so are you just unmounting and > remounting everything using the backup NFS server? > > Just curious how this problem is being solved. > > > ___ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > Have you looked into amd (or, am-utils) ? I haven't used its failover feature, but it certainly does have it. horio shoichi ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
Couple of issues regarding failover. 1) If system B is going to take over system a's IP, it also needs to take it's MAC address. Else you have to wait for an ARP timeout. Some systems (all?) perform a gratuitous arp-reply when an if comes up. But some other systems ignore this if they already have an arp entry, or if they weren't asking for the arp in the first place. 2) The failed system must be made to stay failed, else there is hell to pay when it comes back and finds another system in the bed, er, server room! In a main/standby scenario, this is doable with some simple scripting. Any more than that and you will need some dynamic voting algortihm support. A nice thing about *real* computers is that they have an RS-232 console port and can be made to stay down with a BRK. I believe the PC weasel will allow that, as well. A remote power controller can also serve this need. 3) One argument for run-levels in init was to keep a system at rl 2 monitoring the primary, then go to rl 3 if the primary failes. This, of course, can be done with flat rc.d, and entirely without it, as well. But it made the primary/hotstandby scheme trivial to set-up. Regardless of where you put it and what all it calls, make a single script that can be run from your monitor app once it decides the master is gone. It ensures the primary is dead, starts the server processes, and screams like the dickens for help. 4) NFS may be stateless, but NFS over TCP is common nowadays, and it isn't. Though, I believe the automounter can help with that. 5) NAS serving SAN is nice if you can afford all that fiber term gear. But you can do the same with a scsi raid array that has two host ports. You don't even need the second host port if you can change the scsi initiator ID of one of the hosts. Just keep your cable lengths as short as you can. 6) It is generally cheaper to buy than build, unless you have done it before. The devil is in the details. I've done it before, and I'll buy every time. Given that, a plug for some friends of mine that have made this work in the pri/hs mode. www.nssolutions.com Cheers! -sam ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
In the last episode (May 31), adp said: > Very useful information, thanks. We have a very stable NFS server, > but I am still working hard to put some redundancy into place. I was > thinking that since NFS is udp-based, that if the primary NFS server > failed, and the secondary assumed the primary NFS server's IP > address, that things would at least return to normal (of course, any > writes that had been in progress would fail horribly). That doesn't > seem to be the case. During a test we killed the main NFS server and > brought up the NFS IP as an alias on the backup. Didn't work. Has > anyone tried anything like this? That should work, I believe. NFS is stateless so as long as "a" server starts responding to the client, it should wake up. You may get "stale NFS handle" errors on open files or ones not synched to the slave when the master failed, but apart from that you should be okay. Does a tcpdump show any NFS traffic at all? I have a port of the heartbeat program (from the badly-named www.linux-ha.org site) that automates the IP failover part that I will be submitting soon. 1.2.1 actually works out of the box on FreeBSD, but 1.2.2 has problems releasing the IP when you try to move an active server to standby. -- Dan Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
adp wrote: We can live with the chance that a file write might fail as long as we can switch over to another NFS server if the primary fails. Sorry, NFS simply won't work with the model of operation you've described. There is no way to do fallback to a secondary NFS server if the primary goes down when using read/write shares, nor does there exist any way to push the changes made to a secondary fileserver back to the primary, even if you could convince the clients to fail-over in the first place. Maybe Samba/CIFS would come closer to what you want, or else WebDAV over HTTP? -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
Very useful information, thanks. We have a very stable NFS server, but I am still working hard to put some redundancy into place. I was thinking that since NFS is udp-based, that if the primary NFS server failed, and the secondary assumed the primary NFS server's IP address, that things would at least return to normal (of course, any writes that had been in progress would fail horribly). That doesn't seem to be the case. During a test we killed the main NFS server and brought up the NFS IP as an alias on the backup. Didn't work. Has anyone tried anything like this? - Original Message - From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "adp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, May 31, 2004 11:55 AM Subject: Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it? > adp wrote: > > One of my big problems right now is that if our primary NFS server goes down > > then everything using that NFS mount locks up. If I change to the mounted > > filesystem on the client then it stalls: > > > > # pwd > > /root > > # cd /nfs-mount-dir > > [locks] > > > > If I try to reboot the reboot fails as well since FreeBSD can't unmount the > > filesystem!? > > Solaris provides mechanisms for NFS-failover for read-only NFS shares, but > FreeBSD doesn't seem to support that. Besides, most people seem to want to > use read/write filesystems, which makes the former solution not very useful to > most people's requirements. > > The solution to the problem is to make very certain that your primary NFS > server does not go down, ever, period. Reasonable people who identify a > mission-critical system such as a primary NFS server ought to be willing to > spend money to get really good hardware, have a UPS, and so forth to facility > the goal of 100% uptime. A Sun E450 still makes a nice primary fileserver, > although NAS solutions like a NetApp or an Auspex (not cheap!) should also be > considered. > > The other choice would be to switch from using NFS to using a distributed > filesystem which implements fileserver redundancy, such as AFS and it's > successor, DFS. > > -- > -Chuck > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
We can live with the chance that a file write might fail as long as we can switch over to another NFS server if the primary fails. So amd will help us avoid the "client hung" issue? I will have to take a look. That is the worst thing of all when it comes to a failed NFS server. You can't even remotely reboot the NFS client! Someone has to power reset the damn thing. That's bad. On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:43:37AM -0500, adp wrote: > I am running a FreeBSD 4.9-REL NFS server. Once every several hours our main > NFS server replicates everything to a backup FreeBSD NFS server. We are okay > with the gap in time between replication. What we aren't sure about is how > to automate the fail-over between the primary to the secondary NFS server. > This is for a web cluster. Each client mounts several directories from the > NFS server. > > Let's say that our primary NFS server dies and just goes away. What then? > Are you periodically doing a mount or a file look-up of a mounted filesystem > to check if your NFS server died? If so are you just unmounting and > remounting everything using the backup NFS server? > > Just curious how this problem is being solved. If you're mounting those NFS partitions read/write, then there really isn't a good solution for this problem[1] -- you need your NFS server up and running 24x7. If you are NFS mounting those partitions read-only, then you can in principle construct a fail-over system between those servers. Some Unix OSes let you specify a list of servers in fstab(5) (eg. Solaris) and clients will mount from one or other of them. Unfortunately you can't do that with standard NFS mounts under FreeBSD. You could try using VRRP -- see the net/freevrrpd port for example -- but I'm not sure how well that would work if the system failed-over in the middle of an IO transaction. In any case -- certainly if your NFS partitions are read/write, but also for read-only, perhaps the best compromise is to use the automounter amd(8) This certainly does help with the 'nightmare filesystem' scenario, where loss of a server prevents the clients doing anything, even rebooting cleanly. You can create a limited and rudimentary form of failover by using role-base hostnames in your internal DNS -- eg nfsserv.example.com as a CNAME pointing at your main server, and then modify the DNS when you need the failover to occur. It's a bit clunky and needs manual intervention, but it beats having nothing at all. Cheers, Matthew [1] Well, I assume you haven't got the resources to set up a storage array with multiple servers accessing the same disk sets. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
adp wrote: One of my big problems right now is that if our primary NFS server goes down then everything using that NFS mount locks up. If I change to the mounted filesystem on the client then it stalls: # pwd /root # cd /nfs-mount-dir [locks] If I try to reboot the reboot fails as well since FreeBSD can't unmount the filesystem!? Solaris provides mechanisms for NFS-failover for read-only NFS shares, but FreeBSD doesn't seem to support that. Besides, most people seem to want to use read/write filesystems, which makes the former solution not very useful to most people's requirements. The solution to the problem is to make very certain that your primary NFS server does not go down, ever, period. Reasonable people who identify a mission-critical system such as a primary NFS server ought to be willing to spend money to get really good hardware, have a UPS, and so forth to facility the goal of 100% uptime. A Sun E450 still makes a nice primary fileserver, although NAS solutions like a NetApp or an Auspex (not cheap!) should also be considered. The other choice would be to switch from using NFS to using a distributed filesystem which implements fileserver redundancy, such as AFS and it's successor, DFS. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
On Sun, May 30, 2004 at 02:43:37AM -0500, adp wrote: > I am running a FreeBSD 4.9-REL NFS server. Once every several hours our main > NFS server replicates everything to a backup FreeBSD NFS server. We are okay > with the gap in time between replication. What we aren't sure about is how > to automate the fail-over between the primary to the secondary NFS server. > This is for a web cluster. Each client mounts several directories from the > NFS server. > > Let's say that our primary NFS server dies and just goes away. What then? > Are you periodically doing a mount or a file look-up of a mounted filesystem > to check if your NFS server died? If so are you just unmounting and > remounting everything using the backup NFS server? > > Just curious how this problem is being solved. If you're mounting those NFS partitions read/write, then there really isn't a good solution for this problem[1] -- you need your NFS server up and running 24x7. If you are NFS mounting those partitions read-only, then you can in principle construct a fail-over system between those servers. Some Unix OSes let you specify a list of servers in fstab(5) (eg. Solaris) and clients will mount from one or other of them. Unfortunately you can't do that with standard NFS mounts under FreeBSD. You could try using VRRP -- see the net/freevrrpd port for example -- but I'm not sure how well that would work if the system failed-over in the middle of an IO transaction. In any case -- certainly if your NFS partitions are read/write, but also for read-only, perhaps the best compromise is to use the automounter amd(8) This certainly does help with the 'nightmare filesystem' scenario, where loss of a server prevents the clients doing anything, even rebooting cleanly. You can create a limited and rudimentary form of failover by using role-base hostnames in your internal DNS -- eg nfsserv.example.com as a CNAME pointing at your main server, and then modify the DNS when you need the failover to occur. It's a bit clunky and needs manual intervention, but it beats having nothing at all. Cheers, Matthew [1] Well, I assume you haven't got the resources to set up a storage array with multiple servers accessing the same disk sets. -- Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks Savill Way PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK pgp3LgQX3cSP5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
One of my big problems right now is that if our primary NFS server goes down then everything using that NFS mount locks up. If I change to the mounted filesystem on the client then it stalls: # pwd /root # cd /nfs-mount-dir [locks] If I try to reboot the reboot fails as well since FreeBSD can't unmount the filesystem!? How do I stop this from happening? I am using this to mount NFS filesystems: # mount -o bg,intr,soft ... - Original Message - From: "adp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, May 30, 2004 2:43 AM Subject: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it? > I am running a FreeBSD 4.9-REL NFS server. Once every several hours our main > NFS server replicates everything to a backup FreeBSD NFS server. We are okay > with the gap in time between replication. What we aren't sure about is how > to automate the fail-over between the primary to the secondary NFS server. > This is for a web cluster. Each client mounts several directories from the > NFS server. > > Let's say that our primary NFS server dies and just goes away. What then? > Are you periodically doing a mount or a file look-up of a mounted filesystem > to check if your NFS server died? If so are you just unmounting and > remounting everything using the backup NFS server? > > Just curious how this problem is being solved. > > ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server fail-over - how do you do it?
On Sun, 30 May 2004 02:43:37 -0500 "adp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just curious how this problem is being solved. I cant say i've ever looked into it myself but id susjest an easy solution would be to have a cron script store run every now and again to ping the servers and change the mounts depending on what the responce is. also if your backup system is bespoke and can be modified you could use amd and have the script read stored data on nfs server availability so it can decide where to backup the data. -- Mike Woods IT Technician ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server usage
Charles Swiger wrote: On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:57 PM, Michael Conlen wrote: [ ... ] The production system will use dual channel U320 RAID controllers with 12 disks per channel, so disk shouldn't be an issue, and it will connect with GigE, so network is plenty fine, now I'm on to CPU. Sounds like you've gotten nice hardware. Four or so years ago, I built out a roughly comparible fileserver [modulo the progess in technology since then] on a Sun E450, which housed 10 SCA-form-factor disks over 5 UW SCSI channels (using 64-bit PCI and backplane, though), and could have held a total of 20 disks if I'd filled it. I mention this because... Low volume tests with live data indicate low CPU usage however when I best fit the graph it's dificult to tell how linear (or non linear) the data is. [ ... ] Does that kind of curve look accurate to you (anyone)? ...even under stress testing on the faster four-disk RAID-10 volume using SEAGATE-ST336752LC drives (15K RPM, 8MB cache), each on a seperate channel, with ~35 client machines bashing away, the fileserver would bottleneck on disk I/O without more than maybe 10% or 15% CPU load, and that was using a 400MHz CPU. The notion that an NFS fileserver is going to end up CPU-bound simply doesn't match my experience or my expectations. If you have single-threaded sequential I/O patterns (like running dd, or maybe a database), you'll bottleneck on the interface or maximum disk throughput, otherwise even with ~3.5 ms seek times, multi-threaded I/O from a buncha clients will require the disk heads to move around so much that you bottleneck at a certain number of I/O operations per second per disk, rather than a given bandwidth per disk. Just to add a few .02 cents. Experience has shown pretty much the same as mentioned. I've done some fileserving performance benchmarks (more than I want to count) a while back for a company that was working on a new fileserver 'appliance' system like a lower end to midrange NetApp. Once your network bandwidth was taken care of (meaning enough bandwidth to handle incoming requests), the bottlenecks inevitably were disk I/O- note that this was not always nescessarily indicating adding more disks- if you have a few dozen disks hanging off a dual channel SCSI or RAID card, the actual bottleneck could be the bus the card is plugged into, or the bus speed/bandwidth, so splitting the load across multiple cards (and buses if possible) can be the culprit instead of adding more disk. Other things worth looking at are buffer sizes, both for system and TCP/IP, as well as mount options for NFS shares- if your NFS server is using battery batcked up cache, and is also on a UPS, you definately want to use async in your mount options from clients to speed things up significantly. read and write buffer sizes seem to do best nowadays (huge generalization, but seems to be true for different systems and *NIX OSes I have currently) is somewhere in the 32k-64k range (rsize/wsize client options). One thing that may be worth something as well is the disk throughput itself- on an U320 interface, if you're loaded with 15 disks per channel, it _may_ be bottlenecking the U320 bus at that point. I don't have currently valid numbers on what realistic sustained output is for U320, but I'm sure it can be googled easily enough- I'd expect sustained transfer to be on the order of ~160MB/sec, which is fairly likely to be saturated with 10 or fewer disks. Lastly, you're almost always better, if you can afford the hardware, to handle different types of access via different controllers- in other words, if you are going to be handling mail, web, user home, and a database over NFS or SMB, break them up into individual filesystems, preferably on their own channel and disks, opposed to combining. (This is ignoring the fact that mail, apache, and DBs should really be served by local disk, but as an obvious example.) This is actually just a re-statement of the previous posters comment about disk I/O from many clients moving the heads around, but is certainly true.. Scott ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server usage
On Feb 26, 2004, at 2:30 PM, Michael Conlen wrote: Does FreeBSD's NFS implementation allow for caching of documents on the client side, either its self or through the VM system's inactive pages? Yes to both. NFS clients typically use something called biod or nfsoid, which implements some combination of caching and I/O request coalescing in order to reduce the amount of network traffic going to the server. [ Yes, this means that fsync() over NFS isn't guaranteed to actually have bits written to disk, at least historically... ] The reason I'm asking is that I'm trying to size an NFS server using a few of many similar sites that I hope to cluster. The performance so far has been great, but I'm worried that there's something I'm missing here that will cause the performance/usage to change in a very nonlinear way. Any thoughts on the subject are appreciated. Well, you are going to be bottlenecked potentially by your network or by the maximum I/O rate that your NFS server can sustain. Your data suggests you ought to be able to handle about two orders of magnitude more net traffic, if you're over a dedicated 100 Mbs connection between server and clients (ie, using a switch), so it's likely that you're going to run into limits due to your disks well before then. You can probably switch to using rsync or some other replication scheme instead of NFS if you do run into limits, and keep the files locally if need be. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server usage
On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Charles Swiger wrote: Well, you are going to be bottlenecked potentially by your network or by the maximum I/O rate that your NFS server can sustain. Your data suggests you ought to be able to handle about two orders of magnitude more net traffic, if you're over a dedicated 100 Mbs connection between server and clients (ie, using a switch), so it's likely that you're going to run into limits due to your disks well before then. You can probably switch to using rsync or some other replication scheme instead of NFS if you do run into limits, and keep the files locally if need be. The production system will use dual channel U320 RAID controllers with 12 disks per channel, so disk shouldn't be an issue, and it will connect with GigE, so network is plenty fine, now I'm on to CPU. Low volume tests with live data indicate low CPU usage however when I best fit the graph it's dificult to tell how linear (or non linear) the data is. I've got a ton of points between 7.5Mbit/sec web traffic and and 17Mibt/sec but all the points beyond that are somewhat scattered up to about 23Mibt/sec (with a corresponding 5% load in NFS traffic.) The first interval is pretty linear but the first and second interval are not and appear exponential, and the numbers indicate that a 2Gz Xeon system that's using 2% CPU around 8Mbit in web traffic and 3% around 15 Mbit suddenly using 50% CPU at 52Mbit and 250% at 75Mbit. (presuming 5% of that traffic ends up actually going over NFS). Does that kind of curve look accurate to you (anyone)? Would a web page with pretty pictures help anyone understand what I just said? -- Michael Conlen ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server usage
On Feb 26, 2004, at 4:57 PM, Michael Conlen wrote: [ ... ] The production system will use dual channel U320 RAID controllers with 12 disks per channel, so disk shouldn't be an issue, and it will connect with GigE, so network is plenty fine, now I'm on to CPU. Sounds like you've gotten nice hardware. Four or so years ago, I built out a roughly comparible fileserver [modulo the progess in technology since then] on a Sun E450, which housed 10 SCA-form-factor disks over 5 UW SCSI channels (using 64-bit PCI and backplane, though), and could have held a total of 20 disks if I'd filled it. I mention this because... Low volume tests with live data indicate low CPU usage however when I best fit the graph it's dificult to tell how linear (or non linear) the data is. [ ... ] Does that kind of curve look accurate to you (anyone)? ...even under stress testing on the faster four-disk RAID-10 volume using SEAGATE-ST336752LC drives (15K RPM, 8MB cache), each on a seperate channel, with ~35 client machines bashing away, the fileserver would bottleneck on disk I/O without more than maybe 10% or 15% CPU load, and that was using a 400MHz CPU. The notion that an NFS fileserver is going to end up CPU-bound simply doesn't match my experience or my expectations. If you have single-threaded sequential I/O patterns (like running dd, or maybe a database), you'll bottleneck on the interface or maximum disk throughput, otherwise even with ~3.5 ms seek times, multi-threaded I/O from a buncha clients will require the disk heads to move around so much that you bottleneck at a certain number of I/O operations per second per disk, rather than a given bandwidth per disk. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server and files >2G (STABLE)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:10:23AM -0400, stan wrote: > Same place seen from the HP-UX machine > > $ ls -l > total 45884416 > -rw-rw-r-- 1 1004 root 3153586176 Sep 24 08:34 oracle_dump.09242003 > > So, I'm thinking that I've got a problem with files >2G Does this make > sense? Yep, and it's probably a HP-UX problem. Kris pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NFS server and files >2G (STABLE)
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:40, stan wrote: > I'm having a bit of a problem using a FeeBSD STABLE machine as an NFS > server for an HP-UXa box. I'm able to mount the FreeBSD box, abd see the > files, but take a look at this: > > On teh FreeBSD machine > > $ ls -l > total 11471104 > -rw-rw-r-- 1 stan wheel 11743520768 Sep 24 08:34 > oracle_dump.09242003.exp > > Same place seen from the HP-UX machine > > $ ls -l > total 45884416 > -rw-rw-r-- 1 1004 root 3153586176 Sep 24 08:34 oracle_dump.09242003 > > So, I'm thinking that I've got a problem with files >2G Does this make > sense? > > Here is the /etc/exports file on the FreeBSD machine: > > $ cat /etc/exports > / -alldirs phse6.meadwestvaco.com > /usr -alldirs phse6.meadwestvaco.com > > Sugestions? We have also had problems with large files and HP-UX. I don't know about the latest versions but I think 2G is limit upto version 10.20. The limitation is independent of NFS. Malcolm ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server and files >2G (STABLE)
On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 09:10:23AM -0400, stan wrote: > I'm having a bit of a problem using a FeeBSD STABLE machine as an NFS > server for an HP-UXa box. I'm able to mount the FreeBSD box, abd see the > files, but take a look at this: ... > So, I'm thinking that I've got a problem with files >2G Does this make > sense? ... > Sugestions? I'm not that familiar with HP-UX, but this is from the FreeBSD mount_nfs man page: ... The options are: -2 Use the NFS Version 2 protocol (the default is to try version 3 first then version 2). Note that NFS version 2 has a file size limit of 2 gigabytes. -3 Use the NFS Version 3 protocol. ... Seems you'll want to use v3... :) Marc. -- Marc Ramirez Blue Circle Software Corporation 513-688-1070 (main) 513-382-1270 (direct) http://www.bluecirclesoft.com http://www.mrami.com (personal) ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server redundancy/failover
Guy Van Sanden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Matthias Moin, > Thank you for your answer. I think I'll do it that way, I was > wondering if it would have been possible, Solaris supports giving There isnt any out-of-the-box solution for BSD. You can hack arround the problem. > multiple servers when mounting NFS shares, but I couldn't find > something similar on FreeBSD and Linux. If I need something like that, I'll take a NetApp Filer Cluster (http://www.netapp.com/products/filer/clustered.html) Bis dann Matthias ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server redundancy/failover
Guy Van Sanden wrote: [ ... ] Does anyone know if and how it is possible to set up a redundant NFS server? Yes, although true redundancy for NFS is available only for read-only shares. From "man mount_nfs" under Solaris: Replicated file systems and failover resource can list multiple read-only file systems to be used to provide data. These file systems should contain equivalent directory structures and identical files. It is also recommended that they be created by a utility such as rdist(1). The file systems may be specified either with a comma-separated list of host:/pathname entries and/or NFS URL entries, or with a comma -separated list of hosts, if all file system names are the same. If multiple file systems are named and the first server in the list is down, failover will use the next alternate server to access files. If the read-only option is not chosen, replication will be disabled. File access will block on the ori- ginal if NFS locks are active for that file. What I want to do is this, I have a primary NFS server that serves home directories and data storage. I also have a second system with a lot of disk-capacity, I could set it up as a 'mirror' using rsync. Now, when the primary NFS goes down, clients should automaticly look for the backup one. If the data is read-write, and you need fileserver redundancy, NFS is not adequate: you should consider AFS/DFS instead, although I've heard rumors that the OpenAFS (Arla?) software is somewhat broken on FreeBSD at this point. -- -Chuck ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server redundancy/failover
Hi Matthias Thank you for your answer. I think I'll do it that way, I was wondering if it would have been possible, Solaris supports giving multiple servers when mounting NFS shares, but I couldn't find something similar on FreeBSD and Linux. Kind regards Guy On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:30, Matthias Teege wrote: > Guy Van Sanden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Does anyone know if and how it is possible to set up a redundant NFS server? > > Somthing like that is expensive and mostly not needed. Rsync with a > hot standby system is ok. If the mainserver fail, go to the second > and reconfigure the ip interface. > > Bis dann > Matthias ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server redundancy/failover
Guy Van Sanden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Does anyone know if and how it is possible to set up a redundant NFS server? Somthing like that is expensive and mostly not needed. Rsync with a hot standby system is ok. If the mainserver fail, go to the second and reconfigure the ip interface. Bis dann Matthias -- Matthias Teege -- http://www.mteege.de make world not war PGP-Key auf Anfrage ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: NFS server not respnding!
[I'm taking this off -stable because it really doesn't belong there] Hartmann, O. wrote: > On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Moran wrote: > > Hello Bill. > > :>Hartmann, O. wrote: > :>> Dear Sirs. > :>> > :>> Using FreeBSD 4.6.2-pl2 and FreeBSD 4.7-RC2 on our server system (one 4.7-RC > :>> experimental system) and utilizing AMD for mounting home space and other > :>> services via TCP protocol results in > :>> > :>> nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: not responding > :>> nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: is alive again > :>> > :>> very often, when load of the appropriate client is very high. That happens > :>> when on our number crunching systems utilization of CPU time is high or > :>> many users try copy from and to via SAMBA to the main NFS server system. > :> > :>Yup. Happens because either the server or the network is swamped and some > :>NFS packets are not being responded to as quickly as the client expects. > :> > :>Other than being annoying, it's not really a major problem. > > Well, it seems to _be_ a major problem due to breaking copy actions from > Windows clients over SAMBA when NFS server is not respondig. I wasn't aware that this was causing actual problems (I guess I should read more carefully) > I still __use__ TCP for the NFS connections, especially for all AMD mounts. > Since tcp has been choosen as the main protocoll, those problems occur. > I think something has to be changed to make all clients waiting a little bit > for the server. Yes, search the archives. There are knobs you can tweak. > The only real tweak would be to swap over to GigaBit LAN > within our server system room to avoid the traffice bottleneck between > the serving systems (we have a really misconfigured network and it makes > it really hard to deal with a suitable topology - at the moment all traffic > goes twice through our FreeBSD/PicoBSD filtering bridge). Err ... I would fix the underlying network problems pronto. Anything you do to try to work around them is just going to make things worse. Take my advise on this, I have personal experience. I worked for a place a year ago that was working with a flakey wireless WAN. The wireless guy couldn't get the connection reliable (wildly varying ping times and 5% average packet loss) and I was expected to use FreeBSD to "make up" for these failures. To FreeBSD's (and the rest of the open-source workforce) credit, I was able to do a lot toward hiding the wireless problems, with a combination of VPN compression and a number of scripts that raised/lowered interfaces when things failed, as well as a other screwball tricks. BUT, the network config became unbelievably complex and difficult to maintain, and I was unable to ever get rid of the problems entirely. Obviously, the correct solution was to fix the wireless problems, but that would have cost $$$ (never mind the fact that they paid me tons to constantly play around with the routers) > > Thanks. > :> > :>> This happens under heavy load and, when only a few users are on the systems, > :>> but it happens very often while > :>> > :>> - copying big files/datas from PC systems via SAMBA > :>> - whenever a number crunching job runs on a different server > :>> and on another server a job for copying data has been started, > :>> the influences to a completely different system, in this case the main > :>> NFS server, is significant. > :>> > :>> FreeBSD offers a lot of kernel stuff tunig the system's performance, > :>> especially for NFS etc (also sysctl changeable kernel varibales). > :>> Can anyone help with tuned parameters or give hints how to > :>> investigate problems? > :> > :>Search the mailing list archives. This was discussed some months back, > :>and someone provided info on which knobs to tweak to make the messages > :>go away, along with the possible pitfalls of tweaking those knobs. > :> > :>> What's about the fact running AMD/NFS over TCP instead of UDP? UDP > :>> seems to give the benefit of speed, while TCP seems to be more > :>> reliable and secure from the point of view from the network. > :> > :>I don't think switching to TCP will stop this. To my knowledge, TCP > :>connections only improve reliability over sketchy connections (such > :>as WANs) My experience with NFS/TCP has been that it doesn't really > :>improve reliability that much either (although we were dealing with > :>an _extremely_ flakey wireless WAN - nothing was reliable) > :> > :>-- > :>Bill Moran > :>Potential Technologies > :>http://www.potentialtech.com > :> > :> > > -- > MfG > O. Hartmann > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- > IT-Administration des Institutes fuer Physik der Atmosphaere (IPA) > -- > Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz > Becherweg 21 > 55099 Mainz > > Tel: +496131/3924662 (Maschinenraum) > Tel: +496131/3924144 (Buero) > FAX: +496131/3923532 > > > -- Bill Moran Potential Techn
Re: NFS server not respnding!
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Bill Moran wrote: Hello Bill. :>Hartmann, O. wrote: :>> Dear Sirs. :>> :>> Using FreeBSD 4.6.2-pl2 and FreeBSD 4.7-RC2 on our server system (one 4.7-RC :>> experimental system) and utilizing AMD for mounting home space and other :>> services via TCP protocol results in :>> :>> nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: not responding :>> nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: is alive again :>> :>> very often, when load of the appropriate client is very high. That happens :>> when on our number crunching systems utilization of CPU time is high or :>> many users try copy from and to via SAMBA to the main NFS server system. :> :>Yup. Happens because either the server or the network is swamped and some :>NFS packets are not being responded to as quickly as the client expects. :> :>Other than being annoying, it's not really a major problem. Well, it seems to _be_ a major problem due to breaking copy actions from Windows clients over SAMBA when NFS server is not respondig. I still __use__ TCP for the NFS connections, especially for all AMD mounts. Since tcp has been choosen as the main protocoll, those problems occur. I think something has to be changed to make all clients waiting a little bit for the server. The only real tweak would be to swap over to GigaBit LAN within our server system room to avoid the traffice bottleneck between the serving systems (we have a really misconfigured network and it makes it really hard to deal with a suitable topology - at the moment all traffic goes twice through our FreeBSD/PicoBSD filtering bridge). Thanks. :> :>> This happens under heavy load and, when only a few users are on the systems, :>> but it happens very often while :>> :>> - copying big files/datas from PC systems via SAMBA :>> - whenever a number crunching job runs on a different server :>> and on another server a job for copying data has been started, :>> the influences to a completely different system, in this case the main :>> NFS server, is significant. :>> :>> FreeBSD offers a lot of kernel stuff tunig the system's performance, :>> especially for NFS etc (also sysctl changeable kernel varibales). :>> Can anyone help with tuned parameters or give hints how to :>> investigate problems? :> :>Search the mailing list archives. This was discussed some months back, :>and someone provided info on which knobs to tweak to make the messages :>go away, along with the possible pitfalls of tweaking those knobs. :> :>> What's about the fact running AMD/NFS over TCP instead of UDP? UDP :>> seems to give the benefit of speed, while TCP seems to be more :>> reliable and secure from the point of view from the network. :> :>I don't think switching to TCP will stop this. To my knowledge, TCP :>connections only improve reliability over sketchy connections (such :>as WANs) My experience with NFS/TCP has been that it doesn't really :>improve reliability that much either (although we were dealing with :>an _extremely_ flakey wireless WAN - nothing was reliable) :> :>-- :>Bill Moran :>Potential Technologies :>http://www.potentialtech.com :> :> -- MfG O. Hartmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- IT-Administration des Institutes fuer Physik der Atmosphaere (IPA) -- Johannes Gutenberg Universitaet Mainz Becherweg 21 55099 Mainz Tel: +496131/3924662 (Maschinenraum) Tel: +496131/3924144 (Buero) FAX: +496131/3923532 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Re: NFS server not respnding!
Hartmann, O. wrote: > Dear Sirs. > > Using FreeBSD 4.6.2-pl2 and FreeBSD 4.7-RC2 on our server system (one 4.7-RC > experimental system) and utilizing AMD for mounting home space and other > services via TCP protocol results in > > nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: not responding > nfs server 134.93.180.216:/usr/homes: is alive again > > very often, when load of the appropriate client is very high. That happens > when on our number crunching systems utilization of CPU time is high or > many users try copy from and to via SAMBA to the main NFS server system. Yup. Happens because either the server or the network is swamped and some NFS packets are not being responded to as quickly as the client expects. Other than being annoying, it's not really a major problem. > This happens under heavy load and, when only a few users are on the systems, > but it happens very often while > > - copying big files/datas from PC systems via SAMBA > - whenever a number crunching job runs on a different server > and on another server a job for copying data has been started, > the influences to a completely different system, in this case the main > NFS server, is significant. > > FreeBSD offers a lot of kernel stuff tunig the system's performance, > especially for NFS etc (also sysctl changeable kernel varibales). > Can anyone help with tuned parameters or give hints how to > investigate problems? Search the mailing list archives. This was discussed some months back, and someone provided info on which knobs to tweak to make the messages go away, along with the possible pitfalls of tweaking those knobs. > What's about the fact running AMD/NFS over TCP instead of UDP? UDP > seems to give the benefit of speed, while TCP seems to be more > reliable and secure from the point of view from the network. I don't think switching to TCP will stop this. To my knowledge, TCP connections only improve reliability over sketchy connections (such as WANs) My experience with NFS/TCP has been that it doesn't really improve reliability that much either (although we were dealing with an _extremely_ flakey wireless WAN - nothing was reliable) -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
