On Wednesday, September 07, 2005 09:49:54 -0400 Derek Atkins
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Todd M. Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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.
They do. Jeff Hutzelman and I worked on a fix for this at the IETF
in Minneapolis about three years ago. It was fixed in a middling 1.2
release.
What we fixed was crappy behavior when a client falls off the network and
then later comes back with a different IP address, while the fileserver has
tried to break a callback in the meantime. The IETF network had some
problems that week, one effect of which was that clients tended to do this
a lot.
I think the problem Todd is referring to is what happens when multiple
unrelated clients all claim the same UUID. I imagine we probably don't
deal with that too well.
-- Jeff
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
