Sorry a correction i am using nfs3 (according to network dumps).
+ AND the issue appears to exist in the 2.6.30 kernel on my e100
network card after i transfer a large amount of data.
**

2009/6/29 db [off-list ref]:

I'm running arm 2.6.30 kernel and a 2.6.30 kernel on my desktop.

I see this  "[1257016.190000] nfsd: last server has exited, flushing
export cache
[1257018.250000] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
."
On both ends. The arm is running debian lenny (armel). The desktop is
debian lenny (32bit i368). When this error i cannot continue to
transfer files.

Here is the config of the /etc/exports and what i try to use

"/media/nfs_shares/rsync/  *(rw,no_subtree_check)"
i mount on the desktop with

[root@desktop ]# mount 192.168.1.12:/media/Y/W/  /media/mount_point/ -o soft

and i try using rsync like this (from my desktop).


rsync -av --progress /home/User_NAME/BACKUP/Y/W/X/ /media/mount_point/W/X
and it just hangs. I then try to unmount it and i have problems doing
so. so i need to force the umount

"19051.391800]     Performance counters on
[319051.391804]     input device check on
[319051.391807]     Actions configured
[399843.223405] RPC: Registered udp transport module.
[399843.223413] RPC: Registered tcp transport module.
[399843.346956] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[401465.708049] device eth1 left promiscuous mode
[401689.794716] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402224.640535] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402356.791524] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
[402702.197491] svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
"
I am only using nfs2. I am not using nfs4 / nfs3.

This issue is most troublesome as it breaks my use of nfs.



2009/5/12 Chuck Lever [off-list ref]:

quoted

On May 11, 2009, at 10:39 AM, Frans Pop wrote:

quoted

On Monday 11 May 2009, you wrote:

quoted

On May 10, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Frans Pop wrote:

quoted

After switching from 2.6.29.2 to 2.6.30-rc5 I get this new message
during boot of my home server:
 svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).

Is this the only instance of this message, or do you see it several
times?

It's the only one.

quoted

quoted

This looks to be the result of the following commit:
commit 363f724cdd3d2ae554e261be995abdeb15f7bdd9
Author: Chuck Lever [off-list ref]
 SUNRPC: rpcb_register() should handle errors silently
 Move error reporting for RPC registration to rpcb_register's
caller.

Question is: do I really want to know this? I assume the "failure"
happened with previous kernels too, but silently.

The point of that commit was to report errors _less_ frequently.

:-)

quoted

The server-side RPC code is attempting to be more automatic about
which address families are supported by kernel NFS services.  This
message tells us that some particular case is not handled yet.  I
suspect you weren't seeing this error in the past at all.

Correct. Neither this exact error, nor anything remotely similar.

No, I meant that whether or not you saw an error message, the underlying
condition probably was not occurring before 2.6.30.

quoted

quoted

Can you report more about your server configuration?  What
distribution is this?

Debian stable (Lenny).
nfs-common and nfs-kernel-server (1.1.2)

I'm using nfs4. rpc.statd is not running; rpc.mountd and rpc.idmapd are.

The NFS client and server appear to start lockd listeners for NFSv4.  They
probably don't need to.  But that's a separate issue.

quoted

quoted

Does user space have portmapper or rpcbind?

portmap (6.0)

quoted

Are you blacklisting ipv6.ko?

No, the server has IPv6 enabled.
I'm using NFS mainly from my laptop though, which does not have an IPv6
address for my home network.

quoted

What's the output of "rpcinfo" on your server after it has started NFSD?

I guess you mean the -p option?

$ rpcinfo -p
 program vers proto   port
  100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
  100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
  100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
  100003    3   udp   2049  nfs
  100003    4   udp   2049  nfs
  100021    1   udp  47955  nlockmgr
  100021    3   udp  47955  nlockmgr
  100021    4   udp  47955  nlockmgr
  100021    1   tcp  41860  nlockmgr
  100021    3   tcp  41860  nlockmgr
  100021    4   tcp  41860  nlockmgr
  100003    2   tcp   2049  nfs
  100003    3   tcp   2049  nfs
  100003    4   tcp   2049  nfs
  100005    1   udp  40032  mountd
  100005    1   tcp  40623  mountd
  100005    2   udp  40032  mountd
  100005    2   tcp  40623  mountd
  100005    3   udp  40032  mountd
  100005    3   tcp  40623  mountd
  391002    2   tcp    792  sgi_fam

In this case, it looks like the message can be treated as a notice.  I think
in general we could safely make that a dprintk, but I'd like to wait a bit
more to see if we catch any bad behavior.

--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html