Re: "unlocking" stale nfs? adding -t to running nfsd?

2004-06-13 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jun 13), Palle Girgensohn said:
> --On Sunday, June 13, 2004 15:00:47 -0500 Dan Nelson 
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In the last episode (Jun 13), Palle Girgensohn said:
> >>I should really do this mount with tcp, of course, but found no way
> >>to get a running nfsd to also start accepting tcp (nfsd runs with
> >>"-n 6 -u", no -t). Is there a way to tell a running nfsd to start
> >>accepting tcp connections?
> >
> >Just bounce nfsd after changing nfs_server_flags in rc.conf.
> 
> bounce, you mean like kill -USR1 ? Surely, nfsd does not read
> rc.conf, so kill -USR1 #pid && nfsd -t ...? Is that safe when the
> server has active clients?

In 5.x, you can run /etc/rc.d/nfsd restart, which does read rc.conf. 
In 4.x and earlier, you'll have to kill and restart it manually, like
you wrote.  Clients shouldn't notice anything except a short delay if
they try to do something while nfsd is down on the server.

-- 
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: "unlocking" stale nfs? adding -t to running nfsd?

2004-06-13 Thread Palle Girgensohn
Thanks for the reply!
--On Sunday, June 13, 2004 15:00:47 -0500 Dan Nelson 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In the last episode (Jun 13), Palle Girgensohn said:
I have an nfs mount mounted without -i or -s (stoopid me!), just
plain mount server:/fs /lfs. This was over a WAN connection, and of
course the connection server<->client broke somehow, and now the
mount is stale. This naturally means that I cannot do ls -l / , since
it hangs forever. Now the question: is there any way to unstale this,
so the machine can go back to normal again, without a reboot?
umount -f /mountpoint, and remount it.  The only thing I know of that
can cause an entire mountpoint to go stale is if the server gets
rebooted with a new kernel and it can't determine which filesystem an
incoming request is for.  Connectivity issues shouldn't cause this.
hmm nfs over WAN genererally sucks... I actually had to reboot the client. 
:(

I should really do this mount with tcp, of course, but found no way
to get a running nfsd to also start accepting tcp (nfsd runs with "-n
6 -u", no -t). Is there a way to tell a running nfsd to start
accepting tcp connections?
Just bounce nfsd after changing nfs_server_flags in rc.conf.
bounce, you mean like kill -USR1 ? Surely, nfsd does not read rc.conf, so 
kill -USR1 #pid && nfsd -t ...? Is that safe when the server has active 
clients?


/Palle
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"


Re: "unlocking" stale nfs? adding -t to running nfsd?

2004-06-13 Thread Dan Nelson
In the last episode (Jun 13), Palle Girgensohn said:
> I have an nfs mount mounted without -i or -s (stoopid me!), just
> plain mount server:/fs /lfs. This was over a WAN connection, and of
> course the connection server<->client broke somehow, and now the
> mount is stale. This naturally means that I cannot do ls -l / , since
> it hangs forever. Now the question: is there any way to unstale this,
> so the machine can go back to normal again, without a reboot?

umount -f /mountpoint, and remount it.  The only thing I know of that
can cause an entire mountpoint to go stale is if the server gets
rebooted with a new kernel and it can't determine which filesystem an
incoming request is for.  Connectivity issues shouldn't cause this.
 
> I should really do this mount with tcp, of course, but found no way
> to get a running nfsd to also start accepting tcp (nfsd runs with "-n
> 6 -u", no -t). Is there a way to tell a running nfsd to start
> accepting tcp connections?

Just bounce nfsd after changing nfs_server_flags in rc.conf.

-- 
Dan Nelson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"