On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Wendy Cheng <s.wendy.cheng@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > I think you mis-understand our approach. With our patch, you do *not* > need > > > to do anything if you have only one single (floating) interface to do > nfs > > > export (and you can have the machine configured to use other hostname). > The > > > statd's "my_name" is correctly filled (from kernel by our patch) - it is > no > > > longer bound to 127.0.0.1. > > > > > > > > > > What happens when it fails over to node that has > > different name? Mon_name in NOTIFY changes > > while address it's coming from does not. Which > > one should client believe - the address or the > > name? > > > > But OK, I probably need to dig out the patch to > > have a look. > > > > > In the middle of re-doing our old patch (it should be very small this time, > with Frank's patch already in mainline and Chuck taking over IPV6 issues) so > the logic can be clear. I also have a feel that you never look into > "sm-notify" ? I didn't, as I was under a (apparently false) impression that this indeed is a separate, manual way to trigger the notification for whatever purpose. My apologies, -- // Janne -- 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
