On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, Jeff Moyer wrote: > ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] BUG: autofs4 + cd /net/<Netapp>/vol/vol[0-3] = > port usage problems; [EMAIL PROTECTED] adds: > > raven> On Fri, 14 Jan 2005, David Meleedy wrote: > >> Ian, I have installed the multi-over patch into our version of the > >> automounter 4.1.3-67 (with updated large-program-map patch) and so far > >> everything looks great! I am going to test our machines for a longer > >> period of time and make sure everything looks stable, but so far, so > >> good! > > raven> That sounds very encouraging. Great! > > Very encouraging indeed. Good catch, Ian! > > >> It seems to have eliminated the "BUG" message in the messages file, and > >> it seems as though the automounter can unmount /net/aflac which it was > >> not able to do in the past during a reboot. I suspect that this means > >> it will use a lot less ports, and I might not even need the kernel patch > >> (given the small amount of mounts we actually use) -- I am testing this > >> as well. > > raven> The BUG messages were placed there to identify this happening as > raven> this problem has come up in various forms several times. > > raven> In this case it appears to be caused by the order in which the > raven> mounts are done (ie. received from auto.net). Given that current > raven> autofs implementation of multi-mounts must handle them as a single > raven> unit, nested filesystem mounts, made in the wrong order, cause > raven> overmounting which caused the umount problem. > > raven> Perhaps. > > raven> Depends on whether the mount program has the patch which probes the > raven> NFS server. The port usage problem still remains and I expect it > raven> will continue to cause problems for us one way or another. Hopefully > raven> it will be addressed in the near future. > > Hmm, I wonder what probing it actually does. I'll have a look and see if > we can change the probe code to use non-reserved ports.
I looked at the code in an FC2 mount and found that it did quite a bit of probing. In itself this is probably a good thing as it's more comprehensive than what I do for replicated server mount entries and it may be a precursor to providing that functionality in mount. This just means that we need to get a handle on the objections to RPC transport multiplexing and get it done. Using non-priveledged ports has other dependencies. For example, on Debian with 2.4.27 mountd rejects connections from non-priveledged ports. I didn't spend much time to find out if I could work around it but never the less it likely will generate a bit of noise. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
