On Mon, Jun 09, 2008 at 12:09:48PM -0400, Talpey, Thomas wrote: > At 12:01 PM 6/9/2008, Jeff Layton wrote: > >On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:51:51 -0400 > >"Talpey, Thomas" <Thomas.Talpey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> At 11:18 AM 6/9/2008, Jeff Layton wrote: > >> >No, it's not specific to NFS. It can happen to any "service" that > >> >floats IP addresses between machines, but does not close the sockets > >> >that are connected to those addresses. Most services that fail over > >> >(at least in RH's cluster server) shut down the daemons on failover > >> >too, so tends to mitigate this problem elsewhere. > >> > >> Why exactly don't you choose to restart the nfsd's (and lockd's) on the > >> victim server? > > > >The victim server might have other nfsd/lockd's running on them. Stopping > >all the nfsd's could bring down lockd, and then you have to deal with lock > >recovery on the stuff that isn't moving to the other server. > > But but but... the IP address is the only identification the client can use > to isolate a server. Right. > You're telling me that some locks will migrate and some won't? Good > luck with that! The clients are going to be mightily confused. Locks migrate or not depending on the server ip address. Where do you see the confusion? --b. -- 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
