From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Has replicated mount failover  been implemented?
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:56:11 -0400
Message-ID: <470E7FDB.5090202@redhat.com>
References: <145207.13740.qm@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <145207.13740.qm@web81811.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
List-Id: <autofs.vger.kernel.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs>,
	<mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://linux.kernel.org/pipermail/autofs>
List-Post: <mailto:autofs@linux.kernel.org>
List-Help: <mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs>,
	<mailto:autofs-request@linux.kernel.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org
Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org
To: John Simon <tzzhc4@yahoo.com>
Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org

John Simon wrote:
> Since client-side failover is not currently possible
> with Linux autofs does anyone have any recommendations
> for minimizing server side impact during when a HA-NFS
> server fails over. Right now what happens with HA-NFS
> is all the clients retry so much they basically end up
> DOS'ing the NFS server and causing it to failover
> again and again. We have hundreds of clients.

I don't think that I understand what the client side failover
of Solaris was being used for in this configuration.  If the
server is truly HA, then shouldn't the NFS service be able to
failover from one server to the next with minimal interruption
on the clients?

The Solaris client side failover required relooking up all
file handles which referred to the dead server, so it wasn't
cheap either.

    Thanx...

       ps