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 >>> >>> >> > >