Skip to contentSkip to conversation

RedHat 7.3 crashed NetApp?

DISCUSSION H . J . Lu 4 participants 6 messages May 16, 2002 – May 17, 2002

Subsystems (2)
NFS client NFS server
lore
Share & tools
lore
#1 lore raw
Quoted 4 lines · H . J . Lu

Has anyone seen

http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65069

Is there anyone who can assuage the concerns of sct in this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59245

-sv

_______________________________________________________________

Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

#2 lore raw

Error: RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

In reply to H . J . Lu

Hi...

I have been running nhfsstone on a tcp-mount NFS partition. Both the client and the server are running 2.4.8. The server uses ReiserFS for its disk partition. I've applied the respective nfs-tcp patches to the client and server... and was able to mount the nfs export using mount -otcp on the client...

However, during the test, the server kept giving the error:

RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

Any idea what this error could mean and how to stop it?

thanks,
Abhas.

Signature · 15 lines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhas Abhinav		   | Free Software at its product-ive best.
CEO, DeepRoot Linux
http://www.deeproot.co.in           ---- Server Appliances ----
Ph: +91 (80) 856 5624          ---- Linux Support and Services ----
-------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________________________

Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
#3 lore raw

Re: Error: RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

Quoted 8 lines · On Friday May 17, [email protected] wrote:

Hi...

I have been running nhfsstone on a tcp-mount NFS partition. Both the client and the server are running 2.4.8. The server uses ReiserFS for its disk partition. I've applied the respective nfs-tcp patches to the client and server... and was able to mount the nfs export using mount -otcp on the client...

Quoted 5 lines

However, during the test, the server kept giving the error:

RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

Any idea what this error could mean and how to stop it?

It means that I can't count, and that the patch you have is a bit out-of-date.
The latext -ac patch should work fine.

I probably wont be putting out another complete NFS patch until 2.4.19 comes out.

NeilBrown

_______________________________________________________________

Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs

#4 lore raw

Re: Error: RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

Quoted 1 line · Neil Brown

--|> client and the server are running 2.4.8. The server uses ReiserFS for

                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
							This was "small" typo - it should've been
							2.4.18!
Quoted 6 lines
--|It means that I can't count, and that the patch you have is a bit
--|out-of-date.
--|The latext -ac patch should work fine.
--|
--|I probably wont be putting out another complete NFS patch until 2.4.19
--|comes out.

I patched the server kernel using the patch-Bd-NfsdAll for 2.4.18 that I downloaded from cse.unsw.edu.au. So I guess I am using your latest patches. The client was patched using 2.4.18 + Trond's NFS client patch linux-2.4.18-NFS_ALL.dif. Other than that both the server and the client were patched for reiserfs quota support (Chris Mason's patches).

All these patches were downloaded during the last 14 hours...

I am basically looking at test NFS-TCP support for a file server design for a mail server. We're using reiserfs throughout.

Would the -ac tree be stable enough to experiment with this? And are there any major advantages in using -ac tree or can I get away with using 2.4.18-stable.

thanks for your help,
abhas.

Signature · 15 lines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhas Abhinav		   | Free Software at its product-ive best.
CEO, DeepRoot Linux
http://www.deeproot.co.in           ---- Server Appliances ----
Ph: +91 (80) 856 5624          ---- Linux Support and Services ----
-------------------------------------------------------------------


_______________________________________________________________

Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist  -  [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs
#5 lore raw

Re: Error: RPC request reserved 244 but used 248

Quoted 14 lines · On Friday May 17, [email protected] wrote:
Quoted 1 line · Neil Brown

--|> client and the server are running 2.4.8. The server uses ReiserFS for

                                     ^^^^^^^^^^
							This was "small" typo - it should've been
							2.4.18!
Quoted 6 lines
--|It means that I can't count, and that the patch you have is a bit
--|out-of-date.
--|The latext -ac patch should work fine.
--|
--|I probably wont be putting out another complete NFS patch until 2.4.19
--|comes out.
Quoted 7 lines

I patched the server kernel using the patch-Bd-NfsdAll for 2.4.18 that I downloaded from cse.unsw.edu.au. So I guess I am using your latest patches. The client was patched using 2.4.18 + Trond's NFS client patch linux-2.4.18-NFS_ALL.dif. Other than that both the server and the client were patched for reiserfs quota support (Chris Mason's patches).

All these patches were downloaded during the last 14 hours...

I think you don't understand how my patch repository works, which is understandable, because it isn't really documented anywhere.

How it works is that every patch I create goes there somewhere. From time to time I might recommend particular patches on some mailing list, or send particular patches to Linus/Alan/Marcelo for inclusion into trees.
There is no attempt to keep a current 'best-of-breed' patch or to guarantee correctness of any patches.

By using the patch you did you were doing the 'correct' thing in that it is that latest one that I have publicly recommended. However it is not the latest patch... which is to say that I have not publicly recommend any fixes that I have made, except by sending them to Alan.

But maybe I should....

On-top of that patch that you have, you could add:

http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/patches/linux-stable/2.4.19-pre3-ac1/patch-h-NfsdReserveFix
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/patches/linux-stable/2.4.19-pre4-ac4/patch-A-NfsdSymolicSizes
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/patches/linux-stable/2.4.19-pre7-ac1/patch-A-LockdTcpFix

plus this stanza:

fs/nfsd/export.c 2002/03/18 01:41:40 1.10 renamed from fs/nfsd/export.c 2002/03/18 01:40:45 1.9 +3 -1
@@ -533,13 +506,15 @@
 
        for (hp = head; (tmp = *hp) != NULL; hp = &(tmp->h_next)) {
                if (tmp->h_addr.s_addr == addr) {
+#if 0
+/* this is not safe without BKL or some other spinlock */
                        /* Move client to the front */
                        if (head != hp) {
                                *hp = tmp->h_next;
                                tmp->h_next = *head;
                                *head = tmp;
                        }
-
+#endif
                        return tmp->h_client;
                }
        }

out of
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/patches/linux-stable/2.4.19-pre3-ac1/patch-Q-NfsdLocksExplock

together these should bring you up-to-date...

Actually, there is another on. I don't actually have a -stable patch for it yet, but
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~neilb/patches/linux-devel/2.5.15/patch-E-RpcDGRAMFix

should probably apply on-top of the others OK.

Quoted 3 lines

I am basically looking at test NFS-TCP support for a file server design for a mail server. We're using reiserfs throughout.

Well... Server support for NFS/TCP is very new, as you can probably tell. If you are happy to knit patches together, then go for it.

Quoted 4 lines

Would the -ac tree be stable enough to experiment with this? And are there any major advantages in using -ac tree or can I get away with using 2.4.18-stable.

I cannot comment on how stable -ac is, or what advantages it has, other than the fact that all of the above are in it.

NeilBrown

Quoted 11 lines

thanks for your help,
abhas.

Signature · 6 lines
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Abhas Abhinav		   | Free Software at its product-ive best.
CEO, DeepRoot Linux
http://www.deeproot.co.in           ---- Server Appliances ----
Ph: +91 (80) 856 5624          ---- Linux Support and Services ----
-------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________________________

Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [email protected]
_______________________________________________
NFS maillist - [email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs