On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Jeff Moyer wrote: > ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] [RFC] rpc_ping and looong timeouts; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > adds: > > raven> On Tue, 8 Jun 2004, Michael Blandford wrote: > >> Jeff Moyer wrote: > >> > >> >mlblandf> Would this patch cause problems for those of us who have icmp > >> >mlblandf> blocked? If so, could we make it a run time option to > >> >mlblandf> enable/disable? > >> > > >> >Wow, you block icmp internally? This would incur a timeout for every > >> host >listed in your replicated server entry, and with Ian's patch, it > >> would >incur a timeout for non-replicated servers, as well. In fact, > >> for the >non-replicated server case, I think it would give a false > >> negative, failing >the mount even though the server is up. > >> > > >> >Is this really how you have things configured? NFS clients can't ping > >> >their servers? > >> > > >> > > >> > >> In a large environment it wouldn't be uncommon to have NFS mounts that > >> span across a WAN. Using NFS over TCP seems to make the most sense in > >> that situation. > >> > >> As packets traverse the WAN, there may be routers that block icmp. This > >> is the type of situation where replicated server would make the most > >> sense - find the fastest server. > >> > > raven> I was thinking that we could make disabling ICMP ping a configure > raven> option. What do you think? > > Well, if it's not hard to do...
Should be fairly straight forward. The code sections are small and easily identified. Of course it would be neccessary to make an SRPM from the tarball, install it and edit the configure statement, then rebuild. > > raven> Still, I can't see why an internal WAN would block ICMP. It's needed > raven> for proper operation of your net. > > I don't think that's for us to dictate. ;) There's no reason not to be > flexible on this issue. > Right you are Jeff. My bad. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
