[OpenAFS] windows and alternate networking configuration
Christopher D. Clausen
Sun, 5 Feb 2006 17:19:38 -0600
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
As per my first post on this topic, fileservers are:
C:\>for /l %i in (1,1,4) do @rxdebug afs%i -version
Trying 184.108.40.206 (port 7000):
AFS version: OpenAFS 1.4.1-rc2 built 2005-12-12
Trying 220.127.116.11 (port 7000):
AFS version: OpenAFS 1.4.1-rc5 built 2006-01-27
Trying 18.104.22.168 (port 7000):
AFS version: OpenAFS 1.4.1-rc4 built 2006-01-15
Trying 22.214.171.124 (port 7000):
AFS version: OpenAFS 1.4.0 built 2005-12-11
The FileLog I quoted is from 126.96.36.199 however, the one that is
likely seeing the most traffic from my laptop, is 188.8.131.52 which is
where my user volume resides currently.
Jeffrey Altman wrote:
> The "FindClient X had Y, stolen by X" messages simply mean that the
> client X initiated two calls to the file server and the second call
> blocked while the first was associating the incoming connection with
> the host entry.
> The WhoAreYou failed error indicates that there is a host entry on the
> file server with that IP address and the IP address you are currently
> connected from.
> Question: what version is the file server?
> Jeffrey Altman
> Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
>> No. There is a static reservation of 184.108.40.206 where my laptop
>> has been all weekend.
>> Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>> Did you receive a new IP address not previously used after removing
>>> the alternate configuration?
>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>> Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
>>>> I should have been more specific. Yes, I understand that these
>>>> messages show up when a machine changes IP addresses. However,
>>>> would the messages continue to show up even if there has not been a
>>>> machine at the old IP address for over 48 hours?
>>>> Sun Feb 5 15:46:38 2006 CB: WhoAreYou failed for
>>>> 220.127.116.11:7001, error -01
>>>> The last time that there was a machine at that IP address was at
>>>> 4:30p on Friday 3FEB05. I reinstalled to remove the cache file b/c
>>>> of the unique identifier stored there.
>>>> Sun Feb 5 16:00:19 2006 FindClient: client 6e68d8(fb536c0) already
>>>> had conn 6e1230 (host 80aefb3d), stolen by client 6e68d8(fb536c0)
>>>> Sun Feb 5 16:02:12 2006 CB: WhoAreYou failed for
>>>> 18.104.22.168:7001, error -01
>>>> Showed up when I restarted the client on my laptop. Client still
>>>> has problems accessing paths in AFS. I'm willing to believe that
>>>> this is unrelated to the alternate networking config, but I just
>>>> disabled the alternate config and restarted the client and it
>>>> appears to be working much better now.
>>>> Jeffrey Altman wrote:
>>>>> The messages you are seeing are normal behavior. The client is
>>>>> moving to a new IP address/port combination and the file server
>>>>> can't find the client at the old address. Reinstalling the client
>>>>> or switching to DHCP will not alter the behavior.
>>>>> Jeffrey Altman
>>>>> Christopher D. Clausen wrote:
>>>>>> I have Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition with SP1 installed on my
>>>>>> laptop (don't ask, but yes I really do need the enterprise
>>>>>> edition of Windows Server.) I am using the "Alternate
>>>>>> Configuration" to specify a static IP address for when I am at
>>>>>> work and there is no DHCP as per:
>>>>>> This works quite well, I get an address from DHCP when there is a
>>>>>> DHCP server on the network and my connection gets set to the
>>>>>> static IP if there is no DHCP answer.
>>>>>> However, it seems that this confuses the OpenAFS client. (I am
>>>>>> currently running 1.4.1-rc6 in freelance mode.) There are lots
>>>>>> of "CB: WhoAreYou failed for 22.214.171.124:7001, error -01"
>>>>>> messages in the FileLog when I am not at that IP address and the
>>>>>> AFS client seems to take a long time to access any AFS paths.
>>>>>> fs checks fails and this normally seems to correct any problems
>>>>>> that I've had: C:\>fs checks
>>>>>> fs: code 0x0
>>>>>> I have even reinstalled the client, deleting the AFSCache file in
>>>>>> between and I still see the "WhoAreYou failed" messages on my
>>>>>> servers. And since there are about 10 times as many messages for
>>>>>> that IP than all others combined, I figure that something isn't
>>>>>> Have others had this problem? Is anyone using the Alternate
>>>>>> networking configuration and NOT having this problem?