On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 10:07 -0600, James Richardson wrote: > Ian, > > My apologizes for the delayed response in this; the e-mail never came > into my inbox for some reason. > > The last patch you sent showed that there were multiple DNS queries made > for the same target host - not a query.
No it didn't. It did exactly one query. > > Also, you had said that for each host in a round-robin set autofs will > perform an RPC ping and choose an appropriate host to connect to. I > would actually like a feature to disable all of this logic? Currently it > would be most useful for my purposes if autofs always used the first > address returned from a DNS RR query. > > 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 ----- > > 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. > > > > > > > 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
