On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 17:00 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > As far as the hang you have seen, I don't know why that's happening, the
> > patches were added between el5_5.4 and el5_5.6 have been around for
> > quite a while, upstream and in Fedora and teste
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
As far as the hang you have seen, I don't know why that's happening, the
patches were added between el5_5.4 and el5_5.6 have been around for
quite a while, upstream and in Fedora and tested by more than one
customer, so I didn't expect to hear of a problem.
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 07:40 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > Fair call, but it comes over as though you don't want to contribute at
> > all, which isn't good.
>
> That's not the impression I meant to give at all. I _am_ building some new
> test machines (
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
Fair call, but it comes over as though you don't want to contribute at
all, which isn't good.
That's not the impression I meant to give at all. I _am_ building some new
test machines (about ten of them), and I _will_ do some testing. My test
machines will
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 07:04 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > That's a lame response, given you think it's a serious issue.
>
> I don't think that is a fair response either. For all you know, I might be
> limited by site policy.
Fair call, but it comes ov
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
That's a lame response, given you think it's a serious issue.
I don't think that is a fair response either. For all you know, I might be
limited by site policy.
___
autofs mailing list
autofs@linux.kernel.org
h
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 14:22 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
>
> > That is the way it should work but dns round robin entries like this
> > aren't handled quite correctly.
> >
> > I'm not sure this patch will apply (the CHANGELOG hunk certainly won't)
> > but you
On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Ian Kent wrote:
That is the way it should work but dns round robin entries like this
aren't handled quite correctly.
I'm not sure this patch will apply (the CHANGELOG hunk certainly won't)
but you could try it:
Unfortunately I am not able to try this - I can use only the
On Sat, 2011-02-12 at 15:21 -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Steve Thompson wrote:
>
> > CentOS 5.5 (32- and 64-bit), autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6.
> >
> > Two subnets, A (192.168.0/22) and B (192.168.4/22). NFS server has an
> > interface on both A and B. NFS client has an i
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Steve Thompson wrote:
CentOS 5.5 (32- and 64-bit), autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6.
Two subnets, A (192.168.0/22) and B (192.168.4/22). NFS server has an
interface on both A and B. NFS client has an interface on B only. Maps come
via LDAP. On the client:
# mount
On Sat, 12 Feb 2011, Frank Thommen wrote:
On 12.02.2011 15:29, Steve Thompson wrote:
CentOS 5.5 (32- and 64-bit), autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6.
Two subnets, A (192.168.0/22) and B (192.168.4/22). NFS server has an
interface on both A and B. NFS client has an interface on B only. Maps
come vi
On 12.02.2011 15:29, Steve Thompson wrote:
CentOS 5.5 (32- and 64-bit), autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6.
Two subnets, A (192.168.0/22) and B (192.168.4/22). NFS server has an
interface on both A and B. NFS client has an interface on B only. Maps
come via LDAP. On the client:
# mount
:/mnt/point
CentOS 5.5 (32- and 64-bit), autofs-5.0.1-0.rc2.143.el5_5.6.
Two subnets, A (192.168.0/22) and B (192.168.4/22). NFS server has an
interface on both A and B. NFS client has an interface on B only. Maps
come via LDAP. On the client:
# mount
:/mnt/point on /fs/ type nfs (rw,addr
13 matches
Mail list logo
