From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 567E990B16 for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:39:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2F25FACED for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:38:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.corep.it (mail.corep.it [93.186.252.128]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:38:34 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <37b93c67-fbae-3736-26a2-9ff3af7dc4fd@corep.it> Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 13:38:33 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 From: dea To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <7ab47597-6ed5-f577-49b5-c011b67ad1a8@corep.it> In-Reply-To: <7ab47597-6ed5-f577-49b5-c011b67ad1a8@corep.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.323 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] Possible problem on NFS storage with release 2-3-3 (??) X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2023 12:39:05 -0000 Hi can confirm ! Downgrade via dpkg from 2.3-3 to 2.3-2 (and change kernel to 6.1) and works very fast, as usually. I don't know if the problem is in the kernel or in the 2.3-3 package, but this way it works as it should. The system is in production, so I can't do too many tests and reboots... I was exasperated by the slowness, so I made two changes at once (I know that diagnostically it's the worst solution, but not having time or a way to give too much disruption I couldn't do one test at a time). Luca