Re: [autofs] statfs() and autofs

[Jonathan Loran]

Ian Kent wrote:
On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:41 -0700, Chris Walker wrote:
  
From jimc [07/20 15:31]:
    
Actually, only the sysop knows which is more important: doing the mount 
storm to respond to stat() or statfs(), or avoiding the storm.
      
Agreed. In our case, we have 'heavily discouraged' use of /net on our
big servers and we would prefer that statfs()/stat() waited for the
automount to complete.
    

Just to be absolutely clear.

The "browse" or "--ghost option isn't being used, in oder to avoid mount
storms, but we still see stat(2) and statfs(2) (et. al.) not wait for a
mount to complete.

Is that right?
Is anyone in a position to test a kernel patch?

  
I may be willing to try the patch, but first I need to see if I can 
recreate the problem reliably.  If not, there isn't much use.  I just 
know that on our "faster" servers, the programmers I work with have 
demonstrated the issue.  I will need their help.  I'll let know if I 
make head way.  Thanks,

Jon

P.S. Chris, can you reliably demonstrate the not waiting for the mount 
problem?

_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs