Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 15 Sep 2018 13:55:37 -0400 (EDT)
From:      Daniel Feenberg <feenberg@nber.org>
To:        Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>
Cc:        =?UTF-8?Q?T=C4=B3l_Coosemans?= <tijl@FreeBSD.org>, "rmacklem@FreeBSD.org" <rmacklem@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Gnome and Firefox, lockd and NFS
Message-ID:  <alpine.LRH.2.21.1809151349420.10983@sas1.nber.org>
In-Reply-To: <YQBPR0101MB1809337B66A91E2236CE270FDD180@YQBPR0101MB1809.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
References:  <alpine.LRH.2.21.1809131520190.21225@sas1.nber.org>, <20180915130133.70c66339@kalimero.tijl.coosemans.org> <YQBPR0101MB1809337B66A91E2236CE270FDD180@YQBPR0101MB1809.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help


On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, Rick Macklem wrote:

>
>> Our workaround has been to move the directories .local, .config and .dbus
>> in the home directory to an NFS partition that is mounting without
>> locking, but this seems inadequate as a permanent solution.
>>
>> Since the FreeBSD server stops responding to other clients, it seems it
>> must be a FreeBSD problem.
> I think you have a "livelock" type problem, where the client is flooding the
> server with RPCs.
> To check, you could capture packets when it happens and look at them with
> wireshark, which understands NFS RPCs well.

Can you refer me to posting with more detailed discussion of the 
"livelock" problem? A half hour with Google doesn't show anything 
relevant.

Daniel Feenberg



>
>> Even if the Linux client (systemd?) is making
>> an improper request, it is inappropriate for FreeBSD to hang in response.
>> We also see this same result with Truenas and FreeNAS fileservers (which
>> are based on FreeBSD) but see https://redmine.ixsystems.com/issues/927 for
>> another report related to earlier clients. A Linux NFS server does not
>> display this problem.
> Part of the problem with the NLM is that no two implementations will be 100%
> compatible, since there was never any published spec (like an RFC) for the
> protocol. Each implementation tries various tricks to make it work better.
> I suspect some change between the implementations in SL6 and SL7 triggered
> this. (Since the protocol is unpublished and fundamentally flawed, I don't try
> and fix it and just suggest the above when anyone has problems with it.)
>
> rick
>
>>
>> Daniel Feenberg
>> National Bureau of Economic Research
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
> https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LRH.2.21.1809151349420.10983>