From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jonathan Loran Subject: Re: statfs() and autofs Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:08:27 -0700 Message-ID: <488419CB.6090108@loran.name> References: <20080715204839.GU5858@pixar.com> <1216179794.22783.46.camel@raven.themaw.net> <487D855B.8000405@loran.name> <20080721034112.GU5858@pixar.com> <1216615194.3093.8.camel@raven.themaw.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1989262481602767571==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1216615194.3093.8.camel@raven.themaw.net> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org Errors-To: autofs-bounces@linux.kernel.org To: Ian Kent Cc: autofs@linux.kernel.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============1989262481602767571== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030706080609090100070100" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030706080609090100070100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ian Kent wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:41 -0700, Chris Walker wrote: > >> From jimc [07/20 15:31]: >> >>> Actually, only the sysop knows which is more important: doing the mount >>> storm to respond to stat() or statfs(), or avoiding the storm. >>> >> Agreed. In our case, we have 'heavily discouraged' use of /net on our >> big servers and we would prefer that statfs()/stat() waited for the >> automount to complete. >> > > Just to be absolutely clear. > > The "browse" or "--ghost option isn't being used, in oder to avoid mount > storms, but we still see stat(2) and statfs(2) (et. al.) not wait for a > mount to complete. > > Is that right? > Is anyone in a position to test a kernel patch? > > I may be willing to try the patch, but first I need to see if I can recreate the problem reliably. If not, there isn't much use. I just know that on our "faster" servers, the programmers I work with have demonstrated the issue. I will need their help. I'll let know if I make head way. Thanks, Jon P.S. Chris, can you reliably demonstrate the not waiting for the mount problem? --------------030706080609090100070100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ian Kent wrote:

On Sun, 2008-07-20 at 20:41 -0700, Chris Walker wrote:

From jimc [07/20 15:31]:

Actually, only the sysop knows which is more important: doing the mount 
storm to respond to stat() or statfs(), or avoiding the storm.

Agreed. In our case, we have 'heavily discouraged' use of /net on our
big servers and we would prefer that statfs()/stat() waited for the
automount to complete.


Just to be absolutely clear.

The "browse" or "--ghost option isn't being used, in oder to avoid mount
storms, but we still see stat(2) and statfs(2) (et. al.) not wait for a
mount to complete.

Is that right?
Is anyone in a position to test a kernel patch?

I may be willing to try the patch, but first I need to see if I can recreate the problem reliably. If not, there isn't much use. I just know that on our "faster" servers, the programmers I work with have demonstrated the issue. I will need their help. I'll let know if I make head way. Thanks,

Jon

P.S. Chris, can you reliably demonstrate the not waiting for the mount problem?

--------------030706080609090100070100-- --===============1989262481602767571== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ autofs mailing list autofs@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/autofs --===============1989262481602767571==--