On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 00:18, Jeremy Rosengren wrote: > I've previously posted about this problem, but I still haven't found > an answer, although I think I better understand what's happening. > > We have an automount map called "auto_group" that looks like this: > > icdes ausfiler,minnfiler:/vol/vol0/data/group/& > > ausfiler lives in Texas, minnfiler lives in Minnesota. Between > ausfiler and minnfiler lies a T1 line. > > On the MInnesota office network, from a RedHat Enterprise 3.0 Update 3 > client (using autofs-4.1.3-12), cd'ing into /group/icdes mounts > ausfiler:/vol/vol0/data/group/icdes. No matter what...it always > mounts ausfiler. The problem is that ausfiler is on the other end of > a T1 from the client, whereas minnfiler is on the same subnet, on the > same network switch. > > I filed a support ticket with RedHat Global support, and an engineer > there confirmed that the client does an RPC call with a .1 second > timeout. However, the client's behavior indicates to me that the > comparison being made in the reponse times between the replicated > mount servers isn't fine-grained enough to make the correct choice. A > coworker made the comment that our T1 line could be "too robust", > making the server farther away appear to be good enough for the > client's purposes. > > Solaris doesn't seem to have any issues with doing this properly. A > Solaris client in Minnesota will always mount the "closest" server in > a replicated host map, which is important because we're trying to use > RHEL3 to replace some of our Solaris infrastructure. The RH Global > support engineer suggested reversing the order of the servers in the > map, however that would cause clients in Texas to exhibit the same > behavior that clients in Minneapolis are. > > Can somebody explain to me whether I'm not the right track in > understanding the problem, with regards to the comparison not being > fine-grained enough for the client to make the correct choice? Or, > might there be something else going on? I previously had assumed that > the behavior I was seeing was related to the bug that caused the > client to always mount the first-listed server, but I no longer think > that's the case.
Yes. This behavior is not what I'm after. The Solaris case is what I want it to do. Please bear in mind that this is still fairly new code and a number of problems have been identified and solved so far. I'll have a look at the state of the patches that Jeff has in release 12 and the code and see what I can find out. You'll need to bear with me as I'm way busy atm. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
