Lester Barrows wrote:
In an out-of-band discussion, Jeffrey Altman has managed to convince me (not
an easy task mind you!) that Transarc AFS servers are more likely the cause
of our NAT troubles with AFS clients. For this reason I'm amending my initial
statement to say that if you access Transarc AFS servers, you should not put
AFS clients behind a NAT.
This is apparently due to IBM/Transarc AFS servers' UUID tracking not behaving
correctly when multiple clients come from the same IP. [...]
As long as you brought it up, IBM/Transarc AFS servers don't behave so
hot when the (apparently) same client suddenly shows up coming from lots
of different IP addresses either. I don't know whether OpenAFS servers
deal with it any better.
Not trying to embarrass myself or my colleagues, but if you (like us)
deploy thousands of new OpenAFS Windows clients every year and you build
those disks from the same image, you really want to remove the AFSCache
file (and hence the no-longer-unique UUID) from the master before you
start cloning disks. I'm just saying....
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] 919-962-5273 http://www.unc.edu/~utoddl /
/ When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds. /
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
