On Tue, 31 May 2005, Michael Marion wrote:
> Wonder if this is known.. don't see the same thing in the list, but I'm way
> behind.
>
> Most hosts failing to mount a test server, but watching packets shows that it
> never does try to mount. I've verified that patching 4.1.4 with:
> autofs-4.1.4-multi-parse-fix.patch
> autofs-4.1.4-non-replicated-ping.patch
> autofs-4.1.4-misc-fixes.patch
>
> fixes the problem, and I'm guessing it's the non-replicated-ping patch that
> does it as the ok hosts do a lot more rpc traffic.
Exactly right.
The problem was in the probe logic. It fails if a machine doesn't respond
quickly enough rather than retrying with a longer timeout.
Maybe this one machine has some other problem that's slowing it down?
Duplex?
>
> Only this one host fails, and I think it's due to it not running nfs v2 or
> something else under portmap, it's only running:
> cornholio src {511}$ rpcinfo -p box
> program vers proto port
> 100000 2 udp 111 portmapper
> 100000 2 tcp 111 portmapper
> 100003 3 udp 2049 nfs
> 100003 3 tcp 2049 nfs
> 100005 1 udp 635 mountd
> 100005 1 tcp 635 mountd
> 100005 2 udp 635 mountd
> 100005 2 tcp 635 mountd
> 100005 3 udp 635 mountd
> 100005 3 tcp 635 mountd
>
> Most servers (and filers) which work fine have more ports up, like nfs v2,
> status, nlockmgr, etc.
>
> We're trying to figure out if just enabling nfs v2 support, or something else
> simple will help in the short term.. I'd rather not update the kernel and
> automount daemon on 800+ hosts for one path. :) Though I want to get them all
> updated eventually where I can.
The only thing to do is make the machine respond more quickly.
Network card driver update?
Ian
_______________________________________________
autofs mailing list
[email protected]
http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs
