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
>>
>>
>