RE: [Sheflug] NFS and fast machines

["Morris, David (Allvac, UK)" <david [at] xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: shef-lug-admin [at] list.sheflug.org.uk 
> [mailto:shef-lug-admin [at] list.sheflug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Dave Mitchell
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 5:30 PM
> To: shef-lug [at] list.sheflug.org.uk
> Subject: Re: [Sheflug] NFS and fast machines
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 05:06:22PM -0000, Morris, David 
> (Allvac, UK) wrote:
> > > > It might be something to do with tcpdump putting the interface 
> > > > into promiscuous mode. Try it with -p and see if it 
> stops having 
> > > > its magical effect.
> > > 
> > > Good idea. I (naively) thought that promiscuous mode wouldn't
> > > have a significant effect. I could be wrong.
> > > 
> > > Would that have any effect on LAN broadcasts and the
> > > likelihood of the NFS client seeing the server?
> > > 
> > > (NFS is a new ball game for me).
> > 
> > Doing 'tcpdump -i eth0 -p' also works.
> > 
> > Doing nothing still doesn't work.
> 
> Well, I wouldn't have expected running tcpdump  to make a 
> difference, so the -p was just a long shot. Another long shot 
> would be to use -n as well, to stop tcpdump doing name 
> lookups (ie anything that makes tcpdump as "passive" as 
> possible). The only way that -p might reasonably have made a 
> change is if there was some sort of misconfiuration somewhere 
> that causes the server not to see broadcasts. 
> 
> If you have a spare machine, I'd be trmpted to connect it to 
> the same LAN, (by a hub not a switch), run tcpdump -n on that 
> machine, then run tcpdump on the server, and see whether any 
> traffic is genreated that triggers the response.
> 

Good idea. I'll let you know what happens...

-- 
David

___________________________________________________________________

Sheffield Linux User's Group -
http://www.sheflug.co.uk/mailfaq.html

  GNU the choice of a complete generation.