Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 17:29:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> 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 Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909201722330.22125@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20090919.230053.58383965.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <4AB35086.90502@FreeBSD.org> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909181100340.15785@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca> <4AB495DD.1010006@FreeBSD.org> <20090919.230053.58383965.imp@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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?) 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.63.0909201722330.22125>