From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.aixigo.de ([5.145.142.10]:17236 "EHLO mail.aixigo.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725992AbeIDLzP (ORCPT ); Tue, 4 Sep 2018 07:55:15 -0400 Subject: Re: nfs4_reclaim_open_state: Lock reclaim failed! To: Jeff Layton , linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org References: <03f45066-5cc4-b99a-edc4-69dc34592101@aixigo.de> <30d4e07de5d976756857db77ddb17582897ae2bf.camel@kernel.org> <4aa0284e9f2d4b7994aa976926fd1a84493ee228.camel@kernel.org> From: Harald Dunkel Message-ID: Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 09:31:22 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4aa0284e9f2d4b7994aa976926fd1a84493ee228.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Jeff, On 9/3/18 11:32 AM, Jeff Layton wrote: > > Yes, typically a server reboot will cause the client to reclaim its > state. If the server isn't restarting then you probably have a situation > where the client and server have gotten out of sync in some fashion, the > client is realizing it and attempting to reclaim its state. > > One thing that could (potentially) cause this is a nfs4_unique_id > collision. You might want to survey your clients and ensure that there > aren't any. > /sys/module/nfs/parameters/nfs4_unique_id tells me that the default is an empty string. Thats hard to believe. I had expected the default is derived from the mac address of eth0 or something like this. ??? All explicitly defined nfs4_unique_id are unique, I checked (on the Linux hosts). il06 (the NFS client here) and 4 other ancient servers *were* running with the default "unique" id. My fault. >> Would you recommend to stick with NFS 4(.0) or NFS 3, avoiding the >> new code in NFS 4.{1,2}? Which NFS version in 4.9 or another LTS >> kernel suits best for production use? >> > > v4.1+ are fine (in general) for production, but there are always bugs. > How do NFS version numbers on client and Linux server affect each other? AIX 7.1 (just as an example) supports just "nfs" and "nfs4", not "nfs4.1" or "nfs4.2". Will the AIX clients benefit from the bug fixes included in Linux' nfs 4.1+? Regards Harri