From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 5 15:49:32 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 0788216A4CE for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:49:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5C243D39 for ; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 15:49:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 526373A170; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:49:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E90537F2B; Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:49:31 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 12:49:31 -0300 (ADT) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: Bill Moran In-Reply-To: <20041005110133.48bbbc2f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> Message-ID: <20041005124922.B40597@ganymede.hub.org> References: <20041004001747.J10913@ganymede.hub.org> <20041005052249.GC917@alex.lan> <20041005113329.D40597@ganymede.hub.org> <20041005110133.48bbbc2f.wmoran@potentialtech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed 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 15:49:32 -0000 On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Bill Moran wrote: > "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. Haven't tried yet, but will ... thanks :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664