| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 10:19:31 -0400 From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com> To: Florin Iucha <florin@...ha.net> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] 2.6.21-rc7 NFS writes: fix a series of issues On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 09:17 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:11:46AM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > On Wed, 2007-04-18 at 08:42 -0500, Florin Iucha wrote: > > > Could the port in CLOSE_WAIT state be the culprit? (FWIW > > > the server has been up for 38 days and subjected to > > > this nfs test quite a bit without showing any stress). > > > > The port in CLOSE_WAIT shows that a socket was closed down recently, but > > once the connection is re-established, the client should start sending > > data. > > Do you have a copy of wireshark or ethereal on hand? If so, could you > > take a look at whether or not any NFS traffic is going between the > > client and server once the hang happens? > > Note that the timeout value is 60 seconds, so if you see no immediate > > traffic, then let the ethereal/wireshark session keep running for a > > couple more minutes. > > Should I run wireshark/ethereal on the client or on the server? On the client, please, for the moment. Cheers Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists