From: James Pearson <james-p@moving-picture.com>
Subject: Re: Questions about NFS over TCP
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:48:14 +0100
Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <3EA6A7AE.4F5200E7@moving-picture.com>
References: <3EA66B58.2B1E4A45@moving-picture.com> <shsznmhtn7m.fsf@charged.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net
Return-path: <nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net>
Received: from mpc-26.sohonet.co.uk ([193.203.82.251] helo=moving-picture.com)
	by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian))
	id 198LZu-0000N9-00
	for <nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 07:50:30 -0700
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Help: <mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:nfs@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs>,
	<mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development,
	interoperability,
	and testing. <nfs.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs>,
	<mailto:nfs-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=nfs>

Trond Myklebust wrote:
> 
> >>>>> " " == James Pearson <james-p@moving-picture.com> writes:
> 
>     >> The disadvantage of using TCP is that it is not a stateless
>     >> protocol like UDP. If your server crashes in the middle of a
>     >> packet transmission, the client will hang and any shares will
>     >> need to be unmounted and remounted.
> 
> This is not really true. If the connection is broken, the client
> should detect it, and automatically attempt to reconnect. It may be
> that there are still bugs (I hope not) but the machinery is already
> there.

Thanks for the info - do you know what the 'best' combination of (2.4.X)
kernel/patches gives the most stable NFS over TCP support?

> 
>      > What is the 'best' way to get mount to try an TCP mount first -
>      > if that fails, then try a UDP mount - I had a look at the mount
>      > source and hacked in something to do this if the options -o
>      > tcp,udp are given - my hack is very simple, if the TCP mount
>      > fails (for whatever reason), the try a UDP mount - however, I
>      > don't know how 'safe' this is ...
> 
> It should be fairly safe: after all this is what most NFS clients do
> anyway. I've had a patch available for quite some time on
> 
>   http://www.fys.uio.no/~trondmy/src/util-linux-2.11n.dif.gz
> 
> that makes this easy. Just go to the function 'proto_probelist()' and
> swap the order of UDP and TCP.

That seems to work fine ...

Thanks

James Pearson


-------------------------------------------------------
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