Re: using both nfs3 and nfs4 in a single mount map

[Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>]

Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Jeff Moyer wrote:
>>     
>>> Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On Mon, 2007-07-30 at 15:36 +0200, Lukas Kolbe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi Ian, thanks for your support!
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> Presumably the exports are distinct, in which case using a list of
>>>>>>> server should allow autofs to try each one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> Yep, they are - differnet homes come from different servers.
>>>>>           
>>>>>>> What about trying something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> On second thoughts this may get only the nfs4 or only the nfs3 servers
>>>>>> as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Automount now mounts fine from all servers, but still nfs3
>>>>> only. /proc/mounts shows me:
>>>>>
>>>>> figaro:/users/xxx /homes/xxx nfs rw,nosuid,vers=3,rsize=32768,wsize=32768,hard,intr,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,addr=figaro 0 0
>>>>> bongossi:/export/yyy /homes/yyy nfs rw,nosuid,vers=3,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,hard,intr,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,addr=bongossi 0 0
>>>>>
>>>>> where figaro only exports nfs v3, bongossi exports both v4 and v3 and we
>>>>> really would like to use v4.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Actually, a multi map entry in the master map would probably work.
>>>> Initially I missed this out of version 5 (by accident) so you'll need
>>>> the patch on kernel.org that adds it. In fact I'd recommend applying all
>>>> the 5.0.2 patches.
>>>>
>>>> So forget the last suggestion and patch and apply all the 5.0.2 patches
>>>> on kernel.org and try a line in the master map like:
>>>>
>>>> /homes  multi yp auto_homes -fstype=nfs4,nosuid,grpid,nobrowse,proto=tcp,port=2049 -- \
>>>> 		yp auto_homes -fstype=nfs,nosuid,grpid,nobrowse,proto=tcp,port=2049
>>>>
>>>> and see if that gets what you need. The nfs4 one needs to be first
>>>> because the v4 servers provide both v4 and v3.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> That won't work as the cache code will not even add the second set of
>>> entries for the keys:
>>>
>>> cache_update:
>>> 	} else {
>>> 		/* Already seen one of these */
>>> 		if (me->age == age)
>>> 			return CHE_OK;
>>>       
>> All these excellent suggestions and analysis notwithstanding,
>> wouldn't it be easier to build a version of the NFS mount
>> command which defaulted to NFSv4?
>>     
>
> Precisely.  I wasn't sure if that was an option, though.  We were slow
> to move to nfsv3 as the default, as I recall.

Actually, I was thinking that these folks who really want to use
NFSv4 could build their version...

Or, they could build a pseudo-wrapper sort of thing for the mount
command and have autofs invoke it.  This way, they could move the
smarts for their policy into it instead of attempting to depend
upon and/or mangle autofs into doing it.

    Thanx...

       ps