From: Neil Brown Subject: Re: Bug#148482: 'nfs-kernel-server reload' immediately stales all nfs handles Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:02:11 +1000 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <15749.4467.265708.717072@notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au> References: <20020915221931.GE11002@perlsupport.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Return-path: Received: from tone.orchestra.cse.unsw.edu.au ([129.94.242.28]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 17qiPK-0001rL-00 for ; Sun, 15 Sep 2002 16:02:26 -0700 Received: From notabene.cse.unsw.edu.au ([129.94.242.45] == bartok.orchestra.cse.unsw.EDU.AU) (for ) (for ) By tone With Smtp ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 09:02:17 +1000 To: Chip Salzenberg In-Reply-To: message from Chip Salzenberg on Sunday September 15 Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Sunday September 15, chip@pobox.com wrote: > So is 'exportfs -r' *supposed* to stale all NFS handles? If so, is this > adequately documented? adTHANKSvance exportfs -r is very dependant on the contents of /var/lib/nfs/rmtab. Any export that exportfs finds in /proc/fs/nfs/exports that cannot be deduced from /var/lib/nfs/rmtab and /etc/exports will be removed. We try to keep rmtab up-to-date correctly, but the MOUNT protocol really isn't good enough to get it 100% right. My guess is that for some reason, some of the clients were not listed in rmtab, so their entries in /proc/fs/nfs/exports were removed. I don't know what would have caused this. It could have been an admin error. It could be that the automounter sends unmount messages at the wrong time. It is possible that 'nfs-kernel-server reload' should do "-a", not "-r", but it isn't certain. The most obvious difference between the two is shown by this example: I have some standard exports in /etc/exports and I run exportfs -a to enact them. I then want to do another export for some special, temporary purpose, so I exportfs -o no_root_squash,rw mydesktop:/usr/src Later I make some changes to /etc/exports and want to enact them. If I exportfs -a then it will enact those changes, and leave my temporary export in place. If I exportfs -r then it will enact those changes and remove my temporary export. Which is right? In different situations you want different behaviour. Maybe: reload -> exportfs -a enforce -> exportfs -r Locally, we have a policy (and machinery) that says that any temporary change will probably be blown away over night, so it you want something to be more permanent than that, to it 'properly'. So for us, a nightly "exportfs -r" would probably be appropriate... as long as our automounters did the right thing... Again, 2.6 should not have the same dependance of rmtab so in a couple of years you shouldn't have to worry. NeilBrown ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs