From: Ian Kent Subject: Re: making the 'addr=' mount option an address hint Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 20:26:18 +0800 (WST) Message-ID: References: <1121614708.6713.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1121700961.8780.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <1121711065.23863.31.camel@barsoom.rdu.redhat.com> <1121711870.8707.5.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> <20050718195432.GC24783@suse.de> <1121719793.8251.16.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="1629620785-804072110-1121775978=:2061" Cc: Olaf Kirch , Jeff Layton , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net, autofs@linux.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list2.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1DurI9-0001HY-Qd for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:33:45 -0700 Received: from wombat.indigo.net.au ([202.0.185.19]) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.44) id 1DurI8-0005Uv-7g for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 19 Jul 2005 05:33:45 -0700 To: Trond Myklebust In-Reply-To: <1121719793.8251.16.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. --1629620785-804072110-1121775978=:2061 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE On Mon, 18 Jul 2005, Trond Myklebust wrote: > m=C3=A5 den 18.07.2005 Klokka 21:54 (+0200) skreiv Olaf Kirch: > > On Mon, Jul 18, 2005 at 02:37:50PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote: > > > I would not at all support doing this sort of thing in autofs. If it = is > > > to be done, it should be done by the mount program. > >=20 > > That would make mount awfully slow, and we're suffering from excessive > > boot times already. Besides, mount can see just the current state, > > a daemon would be able to collect statistics over a period of time and > > average it. >=20 > It would be slow only in the case where you have multiple ip addresses > on the server as you would probe them all instead of just probing one as > we do now. Supporting replicated server mounts can certainly be slow. The problem in= =20 deciding what timeout to use. A short timeout can yield false negatives=20 and a longer timeout slows the whole process heaps. Ian --1629620785-804072110-1121775978=:2061-- ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles, informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs