From: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@oracle.com>, Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>
Cc: Linux NFS Mailing list <linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: mounting via udp from legacy multi-homed servers...
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 17:34:26 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110713173426.03576562@notabene.brown> (raw)
This problem doesn't seem to go away, does it :-(
While modern Linux always replies to UDP requests from the same address that
the request was sent to, some legacy systems do not, and some customers use
these legacy systems and cannot upgrade.
And as they are legacy systems, it is often the case that UDP is more
performant than TCP.
nfs-utils always uses a connected UDP socket to talk to servers (which I think
is correct so we get errors when reported by ICMP-unreachable messages) and so
fails to talk to these legacy systems (when UDP is requested).
I had such a case recently and managed to make it work by using:
proto=udp,mountproto=tcp,port=2049
By setting mountproto=tcp, nfs-utils uses tcp for almost all communication
with the server.
The one little problem is that mount does a portmap lookup to check the
port number to talk to the NFS server and seeing we requested UDP for NFS,
it talks to portmap via UDP and never sees the reply.
Setting "port=2049" avoids this lookup so the mount succeeds.
We could just decide that that is the way it is, document that this is how to
talk to systems over UDP when they have a broken portmaper and move on.
But it would be nice if we could find a way to make a solution less ugly and
easier to find.
So some thoughts:
1/ We could use tcp for all rpcbind lookups if tcp was requested for either
MOUNT or NFS.
2/ If '-v' was given and a UDP lookup to portmap timedout, we could retry
without connecting (and with a shorter timeout), and print an explanatory
message if that succeeded.
3/ We could have a mount option "bindproto=tcp" or maybe "bind=noconnect"
which could be recommended by the above explanatory message.
Does anyone else have any good ideas, or any deep aversions to any of the
above.
I'm tempted to go for '1' and possibly add '2', but not bother with '3'.
??
Thanks,
NeilBrown
next reply other threads:[~2011-07-13 7:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-07-13 7:34 NeilBrown [this message]
2011-07-13 11:08 ` mounting via udp from legacy multi-homed servers Jim Rees
2011-07-13 11:57 ` Steve Dickson
2011-07-15 22:55 ` Chuck Lever
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110713173426.03576562@notabene.brown \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=SteveD@redhat.com \
--cc=chuck.lever@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox