On Apr 20, 2008, at 10:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 08:49:52PM -0400, Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 8:02 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> wrote:
I didn't get the idea. So the idea is to use multiple sockets,
one bound to LOOPBACK and one to external interface?
I suppose so. One socket would be for communication for the local
kernel nfsd, one for communication with statd peers.
Ok, but that's really quite intrusive - my goal with that
patch was to minimize the amount of changes. Sure,
we can rework larger part of it if you think is better
that way.
Yes. Hopefully it's not too bad....
My two pfennigs worth:
I think creating a separate loopback listener in the "-n" case is a
reasonable thing to do, and probably won't be terribly complex. This
isn't a performance path, so you can probably get away with a select
on multiple sockets.
Alternately, you could create separate rpc.statd daemons -- one would
listen only for loopback.
--
Chuck Lever
chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
