Joe Pruett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>> i did some testing with a single level /home and if i touch all entries in >>>> /home, i eventually ran into some resource limits. maybe there is some >>>> tuning i can do? i could go back to /home just being full of symlinks, but >>>> that has so many issues of it's own. i'm looking for feedback of other >>>> users >>>> that might have servers with a thousand or more active mounts and how that >>>> works for you. or some other good ideas of how people handle this kind of >>>> thing. >>> >>> it looks like centos 4 (2.6.9 based) uses one tcp connection per mount, >>> but centos 5 (2.6.19) uses one tcp connection per server. without delving >>> into the kernel source, i haven't come up with any answers from google >>> yet. can anyone on this list speak to this issue? >> >> This is the much debated superblock sharing. Did you have a more >> specific question, other than to verify your findings? > > yes, i'm curious if my findings are right. and i guess since you > characterize it as much debated, is it now settled? i've seen some
Yes. I mention it as much debated as the initial implementation caused some (arguably broken) configurations to change behaviour (break). > discussions (about other oses) of making it tunable in some fashion, > and i could see it being nice to allow up to N mounts to share a > single tcp connection. but for my setup, just a single one will > probably be good enough, although with my recent nss netid discovery, > a lot of my resource issues may go away. I don't think Linux allows tuning of this (aside from explicitly stating that two mounts should not share a cache, which is dangerous). Cheers, Jeff _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list [email protected] http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
