On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, Jeff Moyer wrote: > ==> Regarding Re: [autofs] BUG: autofs4 + cd /net/<Netapp>/vol/vol[0-3] = > port usage problems; Ian Kent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> adds: > > raven> 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. > > raven> I looked at the code in an FC2 mount and found that it did quite a > raven> bit of probing. > > raven> In itself this is probably a good thing as it's more comprehensive > raven> than what I do for replicated server mount entries and it may be a > raven> precursor to providing that functionality in mount. This just means > raven> that we need to get a handle on the objections to RPC transport > raven> multiplexing and get it done. > > Umm, you want mount to support replicated servers? Interesting idea, but > I'm not sure I like it. > > raven> Using non-priveledged ports has other dependencies. For example, on > raven> Debian with 2.4.27 mountd rejects connections from non-priveledged > raven> ports. I didn't spend much time to find out if I could work around > raven> it but never the less it likely will generate a bit of noise. > > Right. But you can still try to connect using non-priveledged ports, and > fallback to the current code path if that fails.
But mount doesn't work (in this case) when the kernel on the server end doesn't support non-priveledged ports but the client does. Ian _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
