https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:11 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
Ack
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:48:14PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:11 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
Ack
Dmitri raised an interesting point in the ticket. Our documentation seems to suggest the _srv_ servers can be present in the backup list.
I actually think we should just disallow that and only support host names in the backup list (and I seem to remember that we said that the backup server implementation would keep it simple and won't deal with SRV servers at all).
Supporting _srv_ records would mean all kinds of interesting corner cases like handling duplicates between the primary and secondary list on the fly, because you don't really know what the SRV query would yield.
We can't fix the documentation now that we're past the string freeze, though..
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:23 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:48:14PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:11 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
Ack
Dmitri raised an interesting point in the ticket. Our documentation seems to suggest the _srv_ servers can be present in the backup list.
I actually think we should just disallow that and only support host names in the backup list (and I seem to remember that we said that the backup server implementation would keep it simple and won't deal with SRV servers at all).
Supporting _srv_ records would mean all kinds of interesting corner cases like handling duplicates between the primary and secondary list on the fly, because you don't really know what the SRV query would yield.
We can't fix the documentation now that we're past the string freeze, though..
We've got a couple other potential manpage issues that have come up as well. See https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1461 for an example.
I'm thinking it might be worth our while to make an announcement on Transifex that we're going to break string freeze this week because of some late-discovered issues and that we'll re-push the source strings on Friday.
With that in mind, I agree that we should probably restrict our usage to the primary servers at this time. Please recheck the code and make sure that's actually implemented that way as well. I'm CCing Jan directly to get his input.
Dne úterý 07 srpna 2012 08:12:44, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:23 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:48:14PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:11 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
Ack
Dmitri raised an interesting point in the ticket. Our documentation seems to suggest the _srv_ servers can be present in the backup list.
I actually think we should just disallow that and only support host names in the backup list (and I seem to remember that we said that the backup server implementation would keep it simple and won't deal with SRV servers at all).
Supporting _srv_ records would mean all kinds of interesting corner cases like handling duplicates between the primary and secondary list on the fly, because you don't really know what the SRV query would yield.
We can't fix the documentation now that we're past the string freeze, though..
We've got a couple other potential manpage issues that have come up as well. See https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1461 for an example.
I'm thinking it might be worth our while to make an announcement on Transifex that we're going to break string freeze this week because of some late-discovered issues and that we'll re-push the source strings on Friday.
With that in mind, I agree that we should probably restrict our usage to the primary servers at this time. Please recheck the code and make sure that's actually implemented that way as well. I'm CCing Jan directly to get his input.
I already discussed this with Jakub on IRC. I agree that disabling _srv_ support for backup server list is the most convenient solution. It's also the best one if we want this to be fixed quickly.
However I don't think there will be a lot of corner cases we will have to specifically handle in case we decide to do _srv_ support in backup server list. For example the issue with one server being able to be both in primary and backup list is there even if you don't use srv lookup. Fixing it should not be that difficult and extending the fix to cover _srv_ as well will take ~15 copy-pasted lines from a brief overview of the code.
Thanks Jan
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 02:38:48PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
Dne úterý 07 srpna 2012 08:12:44, Stephen Gallagher napsal(a):
On Tue, 2012-08-07 at 10:23 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 12:48:14PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 18:11 +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1459
I noticed this while trying to reproduce #1364. The SRV servers were just silently skipped because they were not marked as primary.
Ack
Dmitri raised an interesting point in the ticket. Our documentation seems to suggest the _srv_ servers can be present in the backup list.
I actually think we should just disallow that and only support host names in the backup list (and I seem to remember that we said that the backup server implementation would keep it simple and won't deal with SRV servers at all).
Supporting _srv_ records would mean all kinds of interesting corner cases like handling duplicates between the primary and secondary list on the fly, because you don't really know what the SRV query would yield.
We can't fix the documentation now that we're past the string freeze, though..
We've got a couple other potential manpage issues that have come up as well. See https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/1461 for an example.
I'm thinking it might be worth our while to make an announcement on Transifex that we're going to break string freeze this week because of some late-discovered issues and that we'll re-push the source strings on Friday.
Done. The Transifex announcement should land on the list shortly.
With that in mind, I agree that we should probably restrict our usage to the primary servers at this time. Please recheck the code and make sure that's actually implemented that way as well. I'm CCing Jan directly to get his input.
I already discussed this with Jakub on IRC. I agree that disabling _srv_ support for backup server list is the most convenient solution. It's also the best one if we want this to be fixed quickly.
OK, I'll push the one-liner attached at the beginning of the thread to get the SRV support working in master again. Right now, it's not functional at all.
However I don't think there will be a lot of corner cases we will have to specifically handle in case we decide to do _srv_ support in backup server list. For example the issue with one server being able to be both in primary and backup list is there even if you don't use srv lookup. Fixing it should not be that difficult and extending the fix to cover _srv_ as well will take ~15 copy-pasted lines from a brief overview of the code.
I'll be testing how the duplicate detection works and if whether _srv_ tag can be used in the backup list. I'm going to take a stab at how difficult it would be to put _srv_ into the backup list but my gut feelign is that we shouldn't bother if it's anything bigger than a trivial fix. It's very unlikely to be useful anyway.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 06:56:00PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
I already discussed this with Jakub on IRC. I agree that disabling _srv_ support for backup server list is the most convenient solution. It's also the best one if we want this to be fixed quickly.
OK, I'll push the one-liner attached at the beginning of the thread to get the SRV support working in master again. Right now, it's not functional at all.
Pushed to master.
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Jakub Hrozek -
Jan Zelený -
Stephen Gallagher