From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chuck Lever" <chuck.lever@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: Massive NFS problems on large cluster with large number of mounts
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:11:25 -0400
Message-ID: <76bd70e30807170811s78175c0ep3a52da7c0ef95fc6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4869E8AB.4060905@aei.mpg.de> <20080701182250.GB21807@fieldses.org>
	 <486B89F5.9000109@aei.mpg.de> <20080702203130.GA24850@fieldses.org>
	 <1215032676.7087.30.camel@localhost> <487DC43F.8040408@aei.mpg.de>
	 <20080716190658.GF20298@fieldses.org>
	 <76bd70e30807170747r31af3280icf0bd3fdbde17bac@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080717144852.GA11759@fieldses.org>
Reply-To: chucklever@gmail.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: "Carsten Aulbert" <carsten.aulbert-l1a6w7hxd2yELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org>,
	"Trond Myklebust" <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"Henning Fehrmann" <henning.fehrmann-l1a6w7hxd2yELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org>,
	"Steffen Grunewald" <steffen.grunewald-l1a6w7hxd2yELgA04lAiVw@public.gmane.org>
To: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>
Return-path: <linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.29]:53845 "EHLO
	yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753044AbYGQPL1 (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>); Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:11:27 -0400
Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 8so1960789yxm.1
        for <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>; Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20080717144852.GA11759@fieldses.org>
Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-nfs.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 10:47:25AM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 3:06 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@fieldses.org> wrote:
>> > The immediate problem seems like a kernel bug to me--it seems to me that
>> > the calls to local daemons should be ignoring {min_,max}_resvport.  (Or
>> > is there some way the daemons can still know that those calls come from
>> > the local kernel?)
>>
>> I tend to agree.  The rpcbind client (at least) does specifically
>> require a privileged port, so a large min/max port range would be out
>> of the question for those rpc_clients.
>
> Any chance I could talk you into doing a patch for that?

I can look at it when I get back next week.

-- 
 "Alright guard, begin the unnecessarily slow-moving dipping mechanism."
--Dr. Evil