Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2012 09:15:08 +0000 From: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> To: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-rc@freebsd.org" <rc@freebsd.org>, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> Subject: Re: Adding dependency on mountlate to mountd Message-ID: <CADLo839N3gJvZBZA77Dj4XWmrmriYrtBwKeBsB63Y0jexTmdxA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20121216044802.GX71906@kib.kiev.ua> References: <6A58ADA440454E5889DBA6D2D9C56180@multiplay.co.uk> <CAF6rxg=UoSONKXLub7RFTK6Hi7oXRgJ0c7gvhOXW53sa2h964Q@mail.gmail.com> <20121215091424.GS71906@kib.kiev.ua> <CADLo839yEpvMC_BhBzmJ2heNtdUtNHCQymqho4AkJP0hVfdr5g@mail.gmail.com> <1F93E0D525B946B88405EC4203385E0A@multiplay.co.uk> <CADLo838xeXMdcaW1kB0ZdUzkUGeAVuxUJ0sF_GHeUa8yFsNGuA@mail.gmail.com> <20121216044802.GX71906@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 16 Dec 2012 04:48, "Konstantin Belousov" <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:12:00PM +0000, Chris Rees wrote: > > On 15 December 2012 20:09, Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk> wrote: > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > >> > > >> From: Chris Rees On 15 Dec 2012 09:14, "Konstantin Belousov" > > >> <kostikbel@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > It cannot be fine. It breaks local NFS mounts. > > >> > > >> Given that we can't have both, but we can have nullfs and thus solve this > > >> problem. > > >> Is there something that local NFS mounts can do that nullfs won't? > > > > > > > > > Using local NFS mounts seems a bit of strange thing to do, whats the > > > reason for the requirement for these? > > > > > > Wouldnt nullfs mounts replace this requirement and perform better? > No, because there are different use cases. What was useful for me was > the case of migrating services, when the client machine happens to be > the same as the export one. Ability to do loopback nfs mounts removes > the need for non-trivial reconfiguration. > > > > > > Here's an idea, how about in the mountlate script, we pass SIGHUP to > > mountd at the end (or simply restart it, but that'd be slower)? This > > would cover your use case and Kostik's example too. > > The mount(8) already sends SIGHUP to mountd, it is even noted in the > man. Sometimes it results in the quite puzzling behaviour, see e.g. > r172577, which in fact was blamed on a bug in our TCP stack. > > The only case which could not be covered yet is the unability to specify > export points in the exports(5) which only appear after some late > mounts are performed. I think that if you really concerned with this, a > flag to the mountd(8) might be added which allows the daemon to ignore > non-existing export directories. That's a great idea. Steven, would you accept that as a solution? Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CADLo839N3gJvZBZA77Dj4XWmrmriYrtBwKeBsB63Y0jexTmdxA>