[OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

hi guys, can anyone tell what is wrong with "Lost contact with file server " issue? that afs clinet is not in the same domain of afs server. the connection speed is up to 16MB/sec. my afs server is Scientific Linux SL release 5.0 x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 #1 SMP. i use openafs-server-1.4.6-58.SL5.

[OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

hi guys, can anyone tell what is wrong with "Lost contact with file server " issue? that afs clinet is not in the same domain of afs server. the connection speed is up to 16MB/sec. my afs server is Scientific Linux SL release 5.0 x86_64 2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 #1 SMP. i use openafs-server-1.4.6-58.SL5.

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

TIARA System Man wrote: > hi guys, > > can anyone tell what is wrong with "Lost contact with file server " > issue? that afs clinet is not in the same domain of afs server. the > connection speed is up to 16MB/sec. > > my afs server is Scientific Linux SL release 5.0 x86_64 > 2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 #1 S

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

TIARA System Man wrote: hi guys, can anyone tell what is wrong with "Lost contact with file server " issue? that afs clinet is not in the same domain of afs server. the connection speed is up to 16MB/sec. Sounds like NAT bouncing to me. The NAT device keeps timing out the port mappings and

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This was fixed in the Windows cache manager by always retrying RPCs > sent on an existing RX connection that timed out once with a new RX > connection. I am not sure that a similar change was ever made to the > UNIX cache manager. For the record, it s

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

hi jeffrey, you are right! it looks like that. we have three branch offices. one of them is behind NAT. the other two sites do not encounter this problem, so far. that two sites have real ip addresses. (snip) This was fixed in the Windows cache manager by always retrying RPCs sent on an existing

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:23 PM, Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jeffrey Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This was fixed in the Windows cache manager by always retrying RPCs > > sent on an existing RX connection that timed out once with a new RX > > connection. I am not sure t

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

> the other thing, NAT server itself also has "Lost contact" problem. > > please give me some hints. thank you. > Expire your NAT udp port mappings less aggressively? ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailma

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

Derrick Brashear wrote: the other thing, NAT server itself also has "Lost contact" problem. please give me some hints. thank you. Expire your NAT udp port mappings less aggressively? NAT UDP port mappings should have a lifetime of at least ten minutes. _

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

hi jeffrey, sorry. please allow me re-send it. thank you. :) i modified my iptables as following: $IPTABLES -A udp_packets -p UDP -s $ALLOW_IP --sport $CLIENT_AFS_PORT --dport 1024:65535 -j allowed -m conntrack --ctexpire 600 $IPTABLES -A udp_packets -p UDP -s $ALLOW_IP --sport 1024:65535 -

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

hi jeffrey, thank you. :) i modified my iptables as following: $IPTABLES -A udp_packets -p UDP -s $ALLOW_IP --sport $CLIENT_AFS_PORT --dport 1024:65535 -j allowed -m conntrack --ctexpire 600 $IPTABLES -A udp_packets -p UDP -s $ALLOW_IP --sport 1024:65535 --dport $AFS_PORT -j allowed -m

Re: [OpenAFS] afs: Lost contact with file server xxx.xxx.xxx.x

See if there is any logging you can use to determine why the mappings are being dropped (if they are). Perhaps the clients are in fact not reachable for some other reason. We need more precise details. Sam Tseng wrote: hi jeffrey, thank you. :) i modified my iptables as following: $IPTA