From: Trond Myklebust Subject: Re: making the 'addr=' mount option an address hint Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 11:36:01 -0400 Message-ID: <1121700961.8780.13.camel@lade.trondhjem.org> References: <1121614708.6713.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: nfs@lists.sourceforge.net 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 1DuXfl-00088B-0D for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:36:49 -0700 Received: from pat.uio.no ([129.240.130.16] ident=7411) by sc8-sf-mx2.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.44) id 1DuXfi-0004uN-G2 for nfs@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 18 Jul 2005 08:36:49 -0700 To: Jeff Layton In-Reply-To: <1121614708.6713.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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: su den 17.07.2005 Klokka 11:38 (-0400) skreiv Jeff Layton: > So, what I'd like to do is roll a patch for mount to change the behavior > of the 'addr=' option. Instead of ignoring it, we'd treat it as an > address hint. If one of the addresses returned by gethostbyname() > matches this address, then we'd mount using that address. Otherwise, the > existing behavior would prevail (use the first address in the list). > > I'm writing this to solicit some feedback before I dive in and start > working on it. Does this sound like a reasonable idea? Is there > something I'm not considering that would prevent this from working? There's nothing preventing it from working, but what is stopping you from developing a fully automatic version? If you see that the server has multiple addresses, you can, for instance, try timing an RPC ping (null rpc call) to the NFS server. In the version of "mount" that RedHat is using (which I still haven't pushed to the utils-linux maintainer) we're already doing a ping in order to test for service availability. It would be trivial to time those pings. Note that there are various problems that you need to consider. There is the trivial fact that our NFS client doesn't yet work over any other network than IPv4. Less obvious, is the fact that the NFS server may not be willing to grant you access on certain networks (if it is only exporting the disk to an internal LAN for instance). Cheers, Trond ------------------------------------------------------- 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