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. 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
