11:34 a.m.
Thanks for the feedback, Daniel. I quickly tried upgrading to from 2.8 to
3.2 on our CentOS 7 nfs-ganesha server. The 'yum upgrade' process
appeared to go just fine - it was simply a matter of:
systemctl stop nfs-ganesha
yum install centos-release-nfs-ganesha30
yum update
systemctl start nfs-ganesha
to go from nfs-ganesha-2.8.3-4.el7.x86_64 to nfs-ganesha-3.2-6.el7.x86_64.
Unfortunately that was the extent of my joy. Upon startup, ganesha.nfsd
crashed with these log entries:
Apr 13 22:48:17 ganesha systemd: Started NFS-Ganesha file server.
Apr 13 22:48:17 ganesha rpc.statd[30746]: Received SM_UNMON_ALL request
from ganesha while not monitoring any hosts
Apr 13 22:48:52 ganesha kernel: ganesha.nfsd[30820]: segfault at
7f561b35d26f ip 00007f561b35d26f sp 00007f561b35bc18 error 15
Apr 13 22:48:52 ganesha systemd: nfs-ganesha.service: main process
exited, code=killed, status=11/SEGV
I quickly downgraded since I wasn't in a position to try to debug this at
that time.
I admit that I did not dig for documentation that describes potential
issues when upgrading from 2.8 to 3.2. Are there any that I should be
aware of before trying this again? For example, are there any significant
ganesha.conf changes required for this upgrade?
Thanks,
Todd
On Thu, 9 Apr 2020, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> 3.2 is newer, and therefore has more bug fixes, than 2.8.3. It also has
> much more development, so it has more potential bugs. I would consider
> the newest stable version (3.2 in this case) to be the most stable version.
>
> That said, we are about to release new versions of both 2.8.x and 3.x in
> the next week or two, so you may want to wait for that.
>
> Daniel
>
> On 4/8/20 10:40 PM, Todd Pfaff wrote:
>> I'm having stability problems with nfs-ganesha 2.8 and PROXY FSAL on
>> CentOS 7.
>>
>> I haven't yet tried nfs-ganesha 3.0 but I could probably quickly and
>> easily move to that if there is an advantage in doing so.
>>
>> Before I spend time switching from 2.8 to 3.0, can anyone tell me
>> whether either of these versions of nfs-ganesha is considered to be more
>> stable than the other?
>>
>> centos-release-nfs-ganesha28.noarch : NFS-Ganesha 2.8 packages from the
>> CentOS
>> : Storage SIG repository
>> centos-release-nfs-ganesha30.noarch : NFS-Ganesha 3.0 packages from the
>> CentOS
>> : Storage SIG repository
>>
>> What about PROXY FSAL in either of these versions - is one or the other
>> known to be more stable?
>>
>> Is there a more robust version of nfs-ganesha and PROXY FSAL that I
>> should consider trying instead?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Todd
>> _______________________________________________
>> Support mailing list -- support(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to support-leave(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org
>
>