Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:53:47 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: rmacklem@uoguelph.ca 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: <20090920.155347.-675685342.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909201722330.22125@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <4AB495DD.1010006@FreeBSD.org> <20090919.230053.58383965.imp@bsdimp.com> <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909201722330.22125@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0909201722330.22125@muncher.cs.uoguelph.ca>
Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090920.155347.-675685342.imp>