From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 20 21:53:51 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6491065676; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:53:51 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6BF98FC12; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id n8KLq0v3067218; Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:52:00 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:53:47 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <20090920.155347.-675685342.imp@bsdimp.com> To: rmacklem@uoguelph.ca From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: References: <4AB495DD.1010006@FreeBSD.org> <20090919.230053.58383965.imp@bsdimp.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: svn-src-head@FreeBSD.org, rmacklem@FreeBSD.org, svn-src-all@FreeBSD.org, src-committers@FreeBSD.org, jhb@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r197298 - head/sbin/mount_nfs X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:53:51 -0000 In message: Rick Macklem writes: : : : On Sat, 19 Sep 2009, M. Warner Losh wrote: : : > : : > : Hmm, it might actually be nice to be able to change those at some point : > : as well. I have looked at this in the past and it is quite deeply : > : buried in libc. :-/ : > : > What's the benefit for forcing a tcp connection for the portmapper : > RPCs? They just happen once at startup... : > : Someone mentioned an issue w.r.t. umount using UDP, which was basically : a slow timeout when a server didn't handle the UDP call, such as when : it was down. I'd guess that a TCP attempt would fail more quickly than : a UDP attempt when the server doesn't have rpcbind/portmapper running. : (Not so sure when the server has crashed, but I'm guessing that the TCP : connection attempt fails more quickly than the N retries over UDP?) A server down would have the same timeout issues as a UDP timeout. : And what about going through NAT gateways? (I'm not familiar with how : typical NAT gateways are set up, but do they all forward UDP ok?) : : I suspect others would know more about the tradeoffs? rick I think Sam hit the nail on the head: Its more firewall friendly to be able to do it... Warner