|
Home > Archive > Unix administration > January 2004 > NFS Lockups
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| david@douthitt.net 2004-01-23, 4:49 pm |
| I've been trying to use NFS (since it is everywhere) but it continually experiences lockups. I am currently using (or have used) Linux clients, Linux servers, and HP-UX clients. Had an HP-UX HP-9000 NFS client lock up hard - not even the power switch wo
rked - had to pull the power plug on it.
I have attempted to use amd but this also results in lockups, as it uses NFS. Autofs I haven't used as much.
Isn't there a distributed network filesystem which satisifies these requirements?
1. Robust: loss of server or client does not result in affecting other services.
2. Widely available for multiple UNIXes and UNIX clones.
3. Does not require Kerberos.
4. Simple to operate.
5. Experienced and stable.
NFS, AFS, OpenAFS, Coda, Intermezzo - none of these satisfy all of these. I'm probably going to try Samba.... but it isn't the best answer.
| |
| Scott McMillan 2004-01-23, 4:49 pm |
| On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:18:21 +0000 (UTC), david@douthitt.net wrote:
quote:
>I've been trying to use NFS (since it is everywhere) but it continually experiences lockups. I am currently using (or have used) Linux clients, Linux servers, and HP-UX clients. Had an HP-UX HP-9000 NFS client lock up hard - not even the power switch w
orked - had to pull the power plug on it.quote:
>
>I have attempted to use amd but this also results in lockups, as it uses NFS. Autofs I haven't used as much.
>
>Isn't there a distributed network filesystem which satisifies these requirements?
>
>1. Robust: loss of server or client does not result in affecting other services.
>2. Widely available for multiple UNIXes and UNIX clones.
>3. Does not require Kerberos.
>4. Simple to operate.
>5. Experienced and stable.
>
>NFS, AFS, OpenAFS, Coda, Intermezzo - none of these satisfy all of these. I'm probably going to try Samba.... but it isn't the best answer.
>
Are you trying to share portions of your *nix filesystems with Windoze
boxen? If so, Samba works like a champ, and pretty much (in my
experience with it) covers your 5-point criteria above.
Perhaps sharing your network topology and what you are trying to
achieve would bring forth better responses...
Scott McMillan
PS Can you configure your newsreader to automatically wrap lines at
~72 characters?
| |
| David Nixon 2004-01-23, 4:49 pm |
| > I've been trying to use NFS (since it is everywhere) but it continually experiences lockups. I am currently using (or have used) Linux clients, Linux servers, and HP-UX clients. Had an HP-UX HP-9000 NFS client lock up hard - not even the power switch
worked - had to pull the power plug on it.
quote:
> I have attempted to use amd but this also results in lockups, as it uses NFS. Autofs I haven't used as much.
If you are experiencing frequent locks with the Linux NFS service
then you could try another server side implementation.. In our environment
Linux Autofs connecting to an HP-UX 11.0 server works fine.
DaveN.
| |
| Michael Vilain 2004-01-23, 4:49 pm |
| In article <gil4nvs9h0jss25qlmrb647f67u4ui8d35@4ax.com>,
Scott McMillan <smcm@usa.net> wrote:
quote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:18:21 +0000 (UTC), david@douthitt.net wrote:
>
>
> Are you trying to share portions of your *nix filesystems with Windoze
> boxen? If so, Samba works like a champ, and pretty much (in my
> experience with it) covers your 5-point criteria above.
>
> Perhaps sharing your network topology and what you are trying to
> achieve would bring forth better responses...
I don't see any mention of any Billware requirements--only NFS in the
OP. All the NFS I've ever worked with requires a stable, reliable
network. If a server goes down, the clients wait until the server comes
back. Some implementations create a stale mount point, which is where
automount works better rather than soft/hard mounts.
What happens if you remove Linux from the equation? All the HP and SUN
NFS implementations I've worked with were rock solid. I've heard
'mixed' things about the Linux kernel's support for NFS (some said it's
just plain broken). If you make HP the server and Linux the clients,
that may solve your problem.
Network Appliances makes a NFS box that's very extendable. They offer a
variety of network interfaces and storage capacities and are very easy
to manage. If your Linux boxes don't play nice with them, I'd look at
the Linux kernel you're running. It's problably one that's broken in
some way.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...
| |
| Chris Cox 2004-01-23, 4:49 pm |
| "Michael Vilain " wrote:
....snip...quote:
> ... All the HP ...
> NFS implementations I've worked with were rock solid.
HP means Hewlett Packard to me... if so, then this can't
possibly be true. HPUX's NFS is fragile at best even
with 11. Easy to bring down, easy to get stale handles,
etc. Reboot a must.
|
|
|
|
|