houston we have a problem ! - Page 2
FedoraForum.org - Fedora Support Forums and Community
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 21 of 21
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    26
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    As expected, going back to 4.17.6 on the client was fine until I did a large transfer. Interestingly that itself seemed to work fine while my CPU was heavily contended with other tasks, the instant I stopped those others tasks and the file transfer took priority I got a complete lockup. :/

    Also interesting, not had any more problems with the server on 4.17.3 - I wonder if the direction of transfer is relevant in that whichever machine is doing the greatest outgoing transfer is the one that crashes? As I was moving something to the server at the time of the lockup.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    santa barbara, CA
    Posts
    926
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    Quote Originally Posted by alexatkin
    As expected, going back to 4.17.6 on the client was fine until I did a large transfer. Interestingly that itself seemed to work fine while my CPU was heavily contended with other tasks, the instant I stopped those others tasks and the file transfer took priority I got a complete lockup. :/

    Also interesting, not had any more problems with the server on 4.17.3 - I wonder if the direction of transfer is relevant in that whichever machine is doing the greatest outgoing transfer is the one that crashes? As I was moving something to the server at the time of the lockup.
    Was this on NFSv4 ? can you try v3 ?
    For me, v3 is working fineola.

    And in my case on NFSv4 it locked up both ways, writing into the server, or reading from the server. However , writing into the server locked it up a lot quicker than just reading from it.

    cheers.
    "monsters John ... monsters from the ID..."
    "ma vule teva maar gul nol naya"

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    26
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    Did you make the change on the server, client or both? Also was there any performance cost?

    I'm also seeing options for 4.1 and 4.2, I wonder if just downgrading to 4.1 would make a difference?

    I'm kinda reluctant to move to 3 as I remember it being REALLY sensitive to losing the mount if you reboot the server, the client would refuse to reconnect due to claiming it was stale.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    santa barbara, CA
    Posts
    926
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    Quote Originally Posted by alexatkin
    Did you make the change on the server, client or both? Also was there any performance cost?

    I'm also seeing options for 4.1 and 4.2, I wonder if just downgrading to 4.1 would make a difference?

    I'm kinda reluctant to move to 3 as I remember it being REALLY sensitive to losing the mount if you reboot the server, the client would refuse to reconnect due to claiming it was stale.
    I just remounted the clients using "-o vers=3" in the mount command, nothing changed in the server.

    Stability is now guaranteed. For me that is the most important issue at the moment, since the server is in production.
    I did not try other sub-versions of NFSv4. And since I always strive to my usual 1800-day uptimes, rebooting is not an issue for me.

    Performance-wise yeah, I noticed it specially on many writes/second (1000+, spread amongst 3 clients doing 300/s+ each), however, once the cache fills, and then you pass on to many reads/second, I didn't notice any heavy performance difference with NFSv4 when reading, or maybe I didn't have NFSv4 up long enough to measure it properly.
    "monsters John ... monsters from the ID..."
    "ma vule teva maar gul nol naya"

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    santa barbara, CA
    Posts
    926
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    Well, the AMD Epyc is showing signs of stability now, as a file server (both small file cache in an NVMe, and large file cache on raid-EXT4), using NFSv3.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	uptime_using_NFSv3_Screenshot_2018-07-28_10-30-32.png 
Views:	14 
Size:	14.6 KB 
ID:	29740
    "monsters John ... monsters from the ID..."
    "ma vule teva maar gul nol naya"

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    26
    Linux (Fedora) Firefox 61.0

    Re: houston we have a problem !

    I'm sticking with v4 as the hard lockups on the client have gone away on 4.17.9-200 although occasionally the server still has problems, but it seems less frequent and I think just restarting NFSd fixed it last time.

    Will be trying 4.17.12 shortly, fell behind as forgot to re-enable automatic updates after I turned them off temporarily.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. fedup 18->20 ... Houston ... problem ...
    By RawFoX in forum Installation, Upgrades and Live Media
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 6th January 2014, 04:44 PM
  2. whitney Houston Concert in Australia
    By Demz in forum Wibble
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 24th February 2010, 11:25 PM
  3. rawhide repo madness, or - Houston, we have a problem...
    By CiaW in forum Fedora 13 Development Branch
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 19th February 2010, 03:43 AM
  4. Houston, Texas Rocks!
    By BStarbuck in forum Wibble
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 20th December 2008, 08:07 AM
  5. Guys (Gals(Houston))... We have a problem...
    By cooney in forum Using Fedora
    Replies: 93
    Last Post: 12th February 2007, 05:39 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •