Re: clients fail to reclaim locks after server reboot or manual sm-notify

["J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 04:48:57PM -0500, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
> On 11/15/2011 10:50 AM, Pavel wrote:
> > Bryan Schumaker <bjschuma@...> writes:
> > 
> >>
> >> On Mon 14 Nov 2011 02:10:05 PM EST, Bryan Schumaker wrote:
> >>> Hello Pavel,
> >>>
> >>> What kernel version is Debian using?  I haven't been able to reproduce the 
> > problem using 3.0 (But I'm on
> >> Archlinux, so there might be other differences).
> > 
> > Thanks, Bryan, for your reply.
> > 
> > Debian is using Linux kernel version 2.6.32 - I haven't upgraded it.
> > 
> >> It might also be useful if you could share the /etc/exports file on the 
> >> server.
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >>
> >> - Bryan
> > 
> > Thank you for the question - that was my rude mistake. For managing exports I'm 
> > using OCF resource agent 'exportfs'. It uses Linux build-in command 'exportfs' 
> > to export shares and /etc/exports file is empty. However Heartbeat starts much 
> > later than NFS...Now it is clear why this wasn't working. Setting up share that 
> > doesn't rely on Heartbeat resources, resolves the issue.
> > 
> > Still though, the first test was just to make sure NFS functions the way it is 
> > supposed to, and not the goal - the second/main question remains open. When I 
> > run sm-notify in this case, shares are already exported and all the other needed 
> > resources are available as well. Why doesn't sm-notify work? It doesn't work 
> > even in case of single server test. As of using files from /var/lib/nfs/sm/ when 
> > notifying clients from the other node in cluster, it should be okay with -v 
> > option of sm-notify, because it is a common practice to store the whole 
> > /var/lib/nfs folder on shared storage in Active/Passive clusters and trigger sm-
> > notify from the active node. It would be awesome if you could give me a clue.
> 
> I'm seeing the same thing you are using some Debian VMs I set up yesterday afternoon.  It does look like the server is replying with NLM_DENIED_GRACE_PERIOD when sm-notify is used.  Bruce, any idea what's going on here?

Sorry, I'm having trouble keeping up....  What exactly do you do, on
which machine, and what do you then see happen?

--b.

> 
> When I try using my Linux 3.0 / Archlinux machines I don't see any NLM requests due to sm-notify.  I'm not sure that's correct...