[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

NIS requests overwhelm portmapper



I am having a rather strange problem.  It seems that any sort of NIS
request (ypcat, yppoll, ypmatch, etc.) starts an intense round of
ypserv activity (as shown by top), which is then followed by the
following error:

chinook:/etc/init.d# rpcinfo -p localhost
rpcinfo: can't contact portmapper: RPC: Remote system error - Resource temporarily unavailable

In fact, the whole network stops working, though it does recover about
30 seconds later.  When I look through syslog, I see the following:

Jun 24 01:54:56 chinook tcplogd: port 803 connection attempt from localhost [127
.0.0.1]
Jun 24 01:54:56 chinook tcplogd: port 788 connection attempt from chinook.stanfo
rd.edu [36.60.0.17]
Jun 24 01:55:20 chinook last message repeated 4367 times

Why would there be 4367 connections to port 788?  Here's what rpcinfo
shows:

   program vers proto   port
    100000    2   tcp    111  portmapper
    100000    2   udp    111  portmapper
    100021    1   udp   1024  nlockmgr
    100021    3   udp   1024  nlockmgr
    100021    1   tcp   1024  nlockmgr
    100021    3   tcp   1024  nlockmgr
    100005    1   udp    876  mountd
    100005    1   tcp    878  mountd
    100005    2   udp    881  mountd
    100005    2   tcp    883  mountd
    100003    2   udp   2049  nfs
    100004    2   udp    785  ypserv
    100004    1   udp    785  ypserv
    100004    2   tcp    788  ypserv
    100004    1   tcp    788  ypserv
    100009    1   udp    786  yppasswdd
 600100069    1   udp    788
 600100069    1   tcp    790
    100007    2   udp    793  ypbind
    100007    1   udp    793  ypbind
    100007    2   tcp    803  ypbind
    100007    1   tcp    803  ypbind

So, it looks like ypbind is contacting ypserv 4367 times for some
unknown reason.  The NIS server is running on a Debian potato machine
with kernel 2.2.10.  There are 3 NIS clients on SunOS 4.1.3 machines,
but I don't think this has anything to do with this problem.

Has anyone run into something like this before?

Please cc me on all replies.

Thanks,
    Max

Attachment: pgplk0qyFLNv0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: