On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 14:04 -0600, James Richardson wrote: > Ian, > > Would you recommend an alternative method? Having this would fix a > -really- large pain of mine.
Sorry, I've lost the context of this thread with this top posting. But I'll have a try at a reply. What behavior do you need? You never really gave any useful comments on the last patch I sent, except the output, which indicated that only one DNS lookup was being performed, and I thought that was your concern, is that right or has what you need changed? > > Thanks, > > --- > James T. Richardson, Jr. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > eXcellence in IS Solutions, Inc. > 713-862-9200 x226 > > Making IT Work for You > HPC & Enterprise IT Solutions > * HPC Application Acceleration > * Cluster Design, Deploy, Manage, Train > * Linux/Windows Integration > * Remote Management, Backup, Anti-Spam/Virus > * Network Assessments, Design > * Security Audits, Design > * Datacenter Design, Relocation > * Messaging and Collaboration > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Richardson > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:11 PM > To: Ian Kent > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [autofs] Slow mounts when using large round robin sets > Importance: High > > Ian, > > For my particular application it would be best to always have AutoFS use > the first address returned from a round robin set. That being said, I > can also envision scenarios where the current implementation would be > useful. > > Since both situations need to be supported, I propose the addition of a > flag variable: (for example) CHECK_MULTIPLE_RESULTSET= [ none | > proximity ]. When none is set, it just uses the first address returned. > If multiple addresses are returned and 'proximity' is set, AutoFS could > then validate each address in the return set using the proximity logic > currently in place. > > If you would like, I can work on adding support for adding this feature > so that you can review and include it. Do you have any recommendations > on methods for implementing this? > > --- > James T. Richardson, Jr. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > eXcellence in IS Solutions, Inc. > 713-862-9200 x226 > > Making IT Work for You > HPC & Enterprise IT Solutions > * HPC Application Acceleration > * Cluster Design, Deploy, Manage, Train > * Linux/Windows Integration > * Remote Management, Backup, Anti-Spam/Virus > * Network Assessments, Design > * Security Audits, Design > * Datacenter Design, Relocation > * Messaging and Collaboration > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Kent > Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 7:34 PM > To: Steve Thompson > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [autofs] Slow mounts when using large round robin sets > > On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 17:43 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote: > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Ian Kent wrote: > > > > > But, when multiple addresses are returned, autofs uses them as > though > > > they were multiple names and checks to see if they are up and what > the > > > response to an NULL procedure ping is so it can put them in least > loaded > > > order, assuming the servers are at the same proximity. > > > > How about dividing those IP addresses into two sets: those on the same > > subnet as the client and those that aren't, and then proceding as > > above? That might save a hop or two for "close" clients. > > >From the comment in modules/replicated.c (including spelling mistakes): > > A priority ordered list of hosts is created by using the following > selection rules. > > 1) Highest priority in selection is proximity. > Proximity, in order of precedence is: > - PROXIMITY_LOCAL, host corresponds to a local interface. > - PROXIMITY_SUBNET, host is located in a subnet reachable > through a local interface. > - PROXIMITY_NETWORK, host is located in a network reachable > through a local interface. > - PROXIMITY_OTHER, host is on a network not directlty > reachable through a local interface. > > 2) NFS version and protocol is selected by caclculating the largest > number of hosts supporting an NFS version and protocol that > have the closest proximity. These hosts are added to the list > in response time order. Hosts may have a corresponding weight > which essentially increaes response time and so influences the > host order. > > 3) Hosts at further proximity that support the selected NFS version > and protocol are also added to the list in response time order as > in 2 above. > > At least that's how I think it works and hopefully I haven't changed > that with subsequent changes. > > Ian > > > _______________________________________________ > autofs mailing list > [email protected] > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs > > NOTICE: > This message may contain privileged or otherwise confidential > information. > If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the > sender > by reply email and delete the message and any attachments without using, > copying or disclosing the contents. > > > > _______________________________________________ > autofs mailing list > [email protected] > http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs > > NOTICE: > This message may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. > If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately advise the sender > by reply email and delete the message and any attachments without using, > copying or disclosing the contents. > > _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
