Well, if it’s caused by low_mbuf, those are memory buffers that can be cleared with a reboot.

 

However, the issue will likely resurface unless there is a fix for the memory buffer issue.

 

From: toasters-bounces@teaparty.net [mailto:toasters-bounces@teaparty.net] On Behalf Of Tony Bar
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 11:12 AM
To: Edward Rolison
Cc: toasters@teaparty.net
Subject: Re: NwkThd_00:warning: NFS response to client was slow

 

Edward -

 

Good luck with your corrective plan, but if you're getting back to back CPs simply rebooting or patching (unless there's a specific patch that is recommended against this behavior) isn't going to do much to solve your problem.   These errors are almost always caused by having too few physical disks in the underlying aggregate, or a workload that is too aggressive for the aggregate hosting it -- so you're best off relocating the workload (Storage vMotion, volume move, SnapMirror/NDMP dump) or expanding the aggregate.   Another thing you might want to check on is the free space on the aggregate (> 90-95% utilization) since that can also cause problems where housekeeping tasks such as changed block reclamation do not have adequate free space to run.

 

Anyway, to reiterate -- good luck, but keep the above in mind when considering your options. 

 

Thanks!


On Feb 16, 2016, at 8:03 AM, Edward Rolison <ed.rolison@gmail.com> wrote:

The long and short seems to be - I'm getting low_mbuf CPs on the filter head, and at the time the error message occurs - I'm also getting back to back CPs. So have a reboot pending, and probably a code update in the near future. 

 

On 15 February 2016 at 13:32, tmac <tmacmd@gmail.com> wrote:

Are you hosting your datastores on SATA drives? I have seen this before (many times) when customer use SATA and try to host too many virtual machines and they do not turn on the Storage I/O control. (premium feature!).

 

Turning on SIO control does not always solve this either.


--tmac

 

Tim McCarthy

Principal Consultant

 

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:42 AM, Basil <basilberntsen@gmail.com> wrote:

That's a very generic warning- I'd open a case.

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Edward Rolison <ed.rolison@gmail.com> wrote:

NwkThd_00:warning]: NFS response to client xx.xx.xx.xx for volume 0x1234567 was slow, op was v3 write, 65 > 60 (in seconds)

 

I have a filer head, on which I'm hosting ESX datastores.

I've had a couple of instances now of this error (or one rather similar). 

It correlates with VMware getting upset and VMs going read only. But it doesn't actually give me any insight into what is going on.

Has anyone run into this, and can give some further insight as to what might be causing and where I can look? 

 

_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

 


_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters

 

 

_______________________________________________
Toasters mailing list
Toasters@teaparty.net
http://www.teaparty.net/mailman/listinfo/toasters