On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Jim Carter wrote: > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Ian Kent wrote: > > On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > Server proximity takes priority in the selection process. > > > > Mike, can we define "proximity" and "same network segment" as used in the > > Solaris automounter please (if that's possible). > > The desired behavior (and I think this is what our Sun boxes actually do) > is that if the client has an interface such that (clientIP & netmask) == > (serverIP & netmask) (using the client's same netmask for both), then that > server is preferred because the traffic goes direct, not through a router. > The client might have multiple interfaces. >
Yes, I thought of that but it occured to me that we may not want to use a server on the the same subnet. For example, on a multiple subnet gigabit network we might want to find the least loaded server. So this approach might be unreliable. > If there are multiple servers and one is down, another can be tried after a > brief timeout. But what really interests me is hot failover: you already > mounted server "A", which dies. The automounter is magically aware of > this, and mounts server "B". Can of worms: Processes with open files > (readonly of course) in the dead filesystem, you would like to transfer > them transparently to presumably identical files from the other server. > In a map row with multiple servers, all share the same mount point, so how > do you dispose of the corpse so you can mount the other server on the > same-named mount point? None of this will be easy. Mmmm. NFS kernel land I think. We'll have to be extra polite to the NFS gents! Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
