From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lawrence Ong Subject: Re: SM_UNMON again -> kernel Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 09:42:26 +1000 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <20030714234226.GA24258@quasar.nro.au.com> References: <20030711061615.GA1924@quasar.nro.au.com> <20030713042557.GA12903@quasar.nro.au.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from mail.netregistry.net ([203.202.16.100] helo=roanoak.netregistry.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 19cCz5-0000JE-00 for ; Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:43:56 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 10:47:52AM +0200, Trond Myklebust wrote: > >>>>> " " == Lawrence Ong writes: > > > Anyhow, it shows that the kernel is still continually sending > > out unmonitor packets to statd at regular intervals. What the? > > Why is this happening? > > What's wrong with that: I presume you *are* releasing locks every now > and then? How often should you be releasing locks? Right now, on the client and server, it is happening about every 5 minutes. > There's no point in monitoring a server on which you're not holding > any locks. Well, in that case, the only way to make the erroneous SM_UNMON really go away is by adding: 127.0.0.1 localhost mymachine to /etc/hosts. I know you said that's bad, but how else would you do it when the MON function for nfs-utils actually set the my_name variable to 127.0.0.1? Maybe i'm missing something, but so far, the only ways i see that the erroneous message would ever disappear are: a. By putting in 127.0.0.1 localhost mymachine in /etc/hosts b. By having the kernel STOP sending out unmonitor packets to statd at regular intervals c. By changing statd so that it does not set my_name to 127.0.0.1 (breaks fix? for CERT CA-99.05). If you think that there is another way to stop that erroneous SM_UNMON error, without doing any of those ridiculous fix above, I would be willing to test it out. Thanks. Cheers, Lawrence ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email sponsored by: Parasoft Error proof Web apps, automate testing & more. Download & eval WebKing and get a free book. www.parasoft.com/bulletproofapps1 _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs