Il giorno Ven 11 Giu 2010 14:46:55 CET, Dejan Muhamedagic ha scritto:
[...]
> Glad that it works for you now.
> Reading the Florian's configuration, just like you he also
> started IP before exportfs and didn't run into any problems. What
> was Neil's reasoning?
> Thanks,
> Dejan
Hi Dejan,
note that I made a debug by looking (listening to Neil suggestion) at
these two proc files:
/proc/net/rpc/nfsd.export/content:
#path domain(flags)#012#
/share-a#011192.168.1.0/24(rw,no_root_squash,sync,wdelay,crossmnt,no_subtree_check,fsid=1,uuid=7c80c4af:2a244b39:afadb554:8c8e0574)
/proc/locks:
1: POSIX ADVISORY WRITE 753 00:11:3923 0 EOF#0122: FLOCK ADVISORY
WRITE 739 00:11:3916 0 EOF#0123: POSIX ADVISORY WRITE 522 00:11:3049
0 EOF
This were Neil's thoughts:
"Clearly there are no locks .. though I wonder what is mounted on 00:11.
Probably not important.
The fact that the export entry is there after you did "exportfs -f" strong
suggests that a new request came in and caused mountd to re-add the entry.
Do you disable the network interface that the clients connect to *before*
unexporting? If you don't, you should.
Maybe run mountd with "-d all" and see what it is doing when you are
unexporting and unmounting."
This is his reason. I don't know why mountd automatically re-add the
export, but that's the way it is.
I can also say that I made other deep tests and anyway the solution
don't work 100% of the time. Sometimes (think a 20%), when switching, it
fails again (cannot unmount the fs).
If the Florian's configuration was ordered like mine I don't now what to
think...
--
RaSca
Mia Mamma Usa Linux: Niente รจ impossibile da capire, se lo spieghi bene!
[email protected]
http://www.miamammausalinux.org
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
