linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: Shutting down NFS
@ 2001-08-29 12:58 Jesse Pollard
  2001-08-29 13:14 ` Re[2]: " VDA
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jesse Pollard @ 2001-08-29 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: VDA, Jesse Pollard; +Cc: linux-kernel

VDA <VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>:
> Hello Jesse,
> 
> Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 4:42:48 AM, you wrote:
> JP> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, VDA wrote:
> >>...
> >>  killall5 -15; sleep 2; killall5 -9:
> >>    1st run - nothing
> >>    2nd run - nfsd dies
> >>    3rd run - lockd/statd die
> >>    (This is strange. Complicates shutdown script)
> 
> JP> You are using 2 second delay, which might be a bit short, but not unreasonable.
> 
> I have tested this not by shutting down my system but by running a
> test script, watching "ps -AH e" after each run.
> After first run of "killall5 -15; sleep 2; killall5 -9" NFS daemons
> DON'T die at all. After second run only nfsd dies. Only third run
> kills lockd and statd. It does not matter how long I wait between
> runs. (however I didn't wait for minutes. Do you want me to try it?)
> Am I supposed to do the same in shutdown script, i.e.
> 
> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9 ?
> 
> This looks ugly and total sleep time is 25 sec.
> A better way is to make NFS daemons understand what user wants after
> first call, not a third.

This already looks like overkill :-) Only the first one should be
needed. I can understand that NFSD could disable signal 15, but not
how it can disable 9... The only way I know for that to happen is
if the process is in an uninterruptable sleep for some reason (and
that should only delay signal delivery, not eliminate it).

I'll have to look at the sources  to get more details.

Everything else looks reasonable (even with a two second sleep).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re[2]: Shutting down NFS
  2001-08-29 12:58 Shutting down NFS Jesse Pollard
@ 2001-08-29 13:14 ` VDA
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: VDA @ 2001-08-29 13:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesse Pollard; +Cc: linux-kernel

Hello Jesse,

Wednesday, August 29, 2001, 3:58:07 PM, you wrote:
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
>> killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9 ?
>> 
>> This looks ugly and total sleep time is 25 sec.
>> A better way is to make NFS daemons understand what user wants after
>> first call, not a third.

JP> This already looks like overkill :-) Only the first one should be
JP> needed. I can understand that NFSD could disable signal 15, but not
JP> how it can disable 9... The only way I know for that to happen is
JP> if the process is in an uninterruptable sleep for some reason (and
JP> that should only delay signal delivery, not eliminate it).

It looks like killall5 bug - "killall -9 nfsd" kills nfsd at once.
Do you know where killall5 source is? There's no killall5 in
util-linux...

Best regards,
VDA
--
mailto:VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
http://port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua/vda/



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Shutting down NFS
       [not found]     ` <185011756.20010827095543@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
@ 2001-08-29  6:35       ` VDA
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: VDA @ 2001-08-29  6:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jesse Pollard; +Cc: linux-kernel

Hello Jesse,

Tuesday, August 28, 2001, 4:42:48 AM, you wrote:
JP> On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, VDA wrote:
>>...
>>  killall5 -15; sleep 2; killall5 -9:
>>    1st run - nothing
>>    2nd run - nfsd dies
>>    3rd run - lockd/statd die
>>    (This is strange. Complicates shutdown script)

JP> You are using 2 second delay, which might be a bit short, but not unreasonable.

I have tested this not by shutting down my system but by running a
test script, watching "ps -AH e" after each run.
After first run of "killall5 -15; sleep 2; killall5 -9" NFS daemons
DON'T die at all. After second run only nfsd dies. Only third run
kills lockd and statd. It does not matter how long I wait between
runs. (however I didn't wait for minutes. Do you want me to try it?)
Am I supposed to do the same in shutdown script, i.e.

killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9; sleep 5
killall5 -15; sleep 5; killall5 -9 ?

This looks ugly and total sleep time is 25 sec.
A better way is to make NFS daemons understand what user wants after
first call, not a third.
-- 
Best regards,
VDA
mailto:VDA@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua
http://port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua/vda/



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2001-08-29 13:20 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2001-08-29 12:58 Shutting down NFS Jesse Pollard
2001-08-29 13:14 ` Re[2]: " VDA
     [not found] <01082720543901.24861@tabby>
     [not found] ` <200108260735.f7Q7ZH9k002632@leija.fmi.fi>
     [not found]   ` <01082609324300.16138@tabby>
     [not found]     ` <185011756.20010827095543@port.imtp.ilyichevsk.odessa.ua>
2001-08-29  6:35       ` VDA

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).