On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 11:44 -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Joe Pruett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, 17 Sep 2008, Ian Kent wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 2008-09-16 at 17:22 -0700, Joe Pruett wrote: > >>> it looks like some recent changes to both autofs v4 and v5 has caused the > >>> siogcifconf buffer to be only 128 bytes. this means that on our servers, > >>> it can't correctly match a local address since that is only enough room > >>> for 3 addresses and we're in the middle of a renumbering so we have 5-10 > >>> addresses per machine. this was working fine until i just updated to > >>> centos 4.7. from looking at the code, it looks like someone created a > >>> MAX_IF_BUF #define at 2048, but didn't use it for the ioctl call. is that > >>> a mistake? > >>> > >>> i'll try a patched rpm locally and make sure this is the source of my > >>> woes. > >> > >> Yeah, known issue. > >> It's resolved in RHEL-5.3. > > > > it seems like it got worse with the latest 4.7 stuff. maybe i just didn't > > notice machines talking to themselves over nfs previously. has it always > > been 128 bytes?
Oops, yes, forgot that we have this in v4 too now. > > It may have regressed, if that was the update that pulled in the v5 > version of the replicated server handling code. > > > i'm concerned about the patch for my web hosting machine. right now it > > has over 1024 interfaces. the amount of time all that malloc/free is > > going to take for every mount seems pretty expensive. would any kind of > > caching make sense? > > There's no doubt that we could be smarter about this. It may be enough > to make last_len in alloc_ifreq a static. Ian, what do you think about > doing that? Ahhh .. that's a good idea. I'll think about that. > > But honestly, malloc/free is pretty cheap. I doubt you'll see > performance problems due to that. > > Cheers, > > Jeff _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
