7:52 a.m.
Daniel,
I don't have this available from my previous attempt but I'm going through
this now:
https://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/ABRT
to get this particular server set up for crash handling and reporting, and
then I'll test again. If there's anything else that I should do to
improve what I can provide to you folks, please let me know, or point me
at what I should read, and I'll do what I can.
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
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>