From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 5 15:01:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DBC16A4CE for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:01:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from internet.potentialtech.com (h-66-167-251-6.phlapafg.covad.net [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D79343D48 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:01:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from working.potentialtech.com (pa-plum-cmts1e-68-68-113-64.pittpa.adelphia.net [68.68.113.64]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by internet.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F42269A39; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:01:34 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 11:01:33 -0400 From: Bill Moran To: "Marc G. Fournier" Message-Id: <20041005110133.48bbbc2f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20041005113329.D40597@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20041004001747.J10913@ganymede.hub.org> <20041005052249.GC917@alex.lan> <20041005085102.376a7e95.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <20041005113329.D40597@ganymede.hub.org> Organization: Potential Technologies X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd4.9) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: nfs server not responding / is alive again X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 15:01:35 -0000 "Marc G. Fournier" 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