Re: [RFC] Should lockd get into grace_period when statd start but not stop?

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

On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 06:05:33PM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
> 
> 
> J. Bruce Fields :
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 05:42:18PM +0800, Mi Jinlong wrote:
> >>
> >> J. Bruce Fields:
> >>> Our current NFS implementation just isn't designed to be able to shut
> >>> down some components while leaving others running.
> >>   Really? But the lockd started with nfs service start, but not nfslock service.
> >>   And, lockd can't stop with statd at the same time. 
> >>   Sometimes, the lockd will not synchronous with statd. Maybe this problem is a good example.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I still don't understand.
> > 
> > Please take a look at section 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 of the nfs-utils README
> > file.  That describes the order in which servers should be started and
> > stopped.
> 
>   Maybe that's my problem. 
>   The status of lockd and statd, when testing.
> 
>          lockd                statd
>            |                    |   <== service nfslock stop
>        get KILL signal        stopd   ^
>    and get into grace_period    |     |


I believe you also need to shut down nfsd here.

--b.

>            |                    |     | more than grace_period time
>            |                    |     v
>            |                    |   <== service nfslock start
>       normal state              |
>            |                  start   Client receive SM_NOTIFY and reclaime lock,
>            |                    |     but out of grace_period time.
>            v                    v
> 
>   As above, after nfslock service start, client cannot reclaime lock success.