7:03 a.m.
Open an issue on github with backtrace and so on.
Daniel
On 4/20/20 2:38 PM, Todd Pfaff wrote:
Daniel,
I have an abrt crash dump now. What would you like me to do with this?
# abrt-cli list
id 50e331b3cd0ec038df60b9346727abdfdc55f807
reason: ganesha.nfsd killed by SIGSEGV
time: Fri 17 Apr 2020 11:50:22 PM EDT
cmdline: /usr/bin/ganesha.nfsd -L /var/log/ganesha/ganesha.log -f
/etc/ganesha/ganesha.conf -N NIV_CRIT
package: nfs-ganesha-3.2-6.el7
uid: 0 (root)
count: 1
Directory: /var/spool/abrt/ccpp-2020-04-17-23:50:22-1648
The Autoreporting feature is disabled. Please consider enabling it by
issuing 'abrt-auto-reporting enabled' as a user with root privileges
Thanks,
Todd
On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> An upgrade should never trigger a segfault. Do you have backtraces
> saved somewhere?
>
> Daniel
>
> On 4/15/20 12:34 PM, Todd Pfaff wrote:
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Support mailing list -- support(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org
To unsubscribe send an email to support-leave(a)lists.nfs-ganesha.org