Hello,
after applying the patch I'm no longer able to replicate the issue.
The change in code seems OK to me.
ACK
Regards,
PR
On 07/28/2014 01:16 PM, Pavel Březina wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/2390
sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 01:16:20PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
Is it possible to add a unit test, too?
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 13:16 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
If previous SRV lookup failed and the SRV lookup status is not yet reseted to neutral we end up with unresolved meta server with neutral port status. This caused the failover to stick with the meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Please rephrase because I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in this commit message, this is what I understood (and propose as the commit message to set):
If a previous SRV lookup failed and the status is not already set to neutral, then the meta server port status end up being neutral. This causes the failover code to keep trying with the same meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Simo.
On 07/28/2014 04:23 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 13:16 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
If previous SRV lookup failed and the SRV lookup status is not yet reseted to neutral we end up with unresolved meta server with neutral port status. This caused the failover to stick with the meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Please rephrase because I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in this commit message, this is what I understood (and propose as the commit message to set):
If a previous SRV lookup failed and the status is not already set to neutral, then the meta server port status end up being neutral. This causes the failover code to keep trying with the same meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Simo.
I don't think you rephrasing is correct. What I'm trying to say is:
There are two meta server status: - port status (A) - srv lookup status (B)
1. srv lookup fails, setting B to "resolve error" and A to "not working", sssd goes offline 2. sssd tries to go back online, setting A to "neutral" 3. it tries to resolve meta server, but B is "resolve error" since we haven't reached the timeout to set B to "neutral" as well 4. resolving meta server fails, but we don't continue with the next server
I believe my explanation is correct but it maybe needs more words for those who did not dig in the code. Should I use more verbose explanation similar to the one above?
On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 13:06 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 07/28/2014 04:23 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 13:16 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
If previous SRV lookup failed and the SRV lookup status is not yet reseted to neutral we end up with unresolved meta server with neutral port status. This caused the failover to stick with the meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Please rephrase because I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in this commit message, this is what I understood (and propose as the commit message to set):
If a previous SRV lookup failed and the status is not already set to neutral, then the meta server port status end up being neutral. This causes the failover code to keep trying with the same meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Simo.
I don't think you rephrasing is correct. What I'm trying to say is:
There are two meta server status:
- port status (A)
- srv lookup status (B)
- srv lookup fails, setting B to "resolve error" and A to "not
working", sssd goes offline 2. sssd tries to go back online, setting A to "neutral" 3. it tries to resolve meta server, but B is "resolve error" since we haven't reached the timeout to set B to "neutral" as well 4. resolving meta server fails, but we don't continue with the next server
I believe my explanation is correct but it maybe needs more words for those who did not dig in the code. Should I use more verbose explanation similar to the one above?
Yes please.
Simo.
On 07/30/2014 01:51 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 13:06 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
On 07/28/2014 04:23 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 13:16 +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
If previous SRV lookup failed and the SRV lookup status is not yet reseted to neutral we end up with unresolved meta server with neutral port status. This caused the failover to stick with the meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Please rephrase because I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say in this commit message, this is what I understood (and propose as the commit message to set):
If a previous SRV lookup failed and the status is not already set to neutral, then the meta server port status end up being neutral. This causes the failover code to keep trying with the same meta server instead of cycling through all configured servers.
Simo.
I don't think you rephrasing is correct. What I'm trying to say is:
There are two meta server status:
- port status (A)
- srv lookup status (B)
- srv lookup fails, setting B to "resolve error" and A to "not
working", sssd goes offline 2. sssd tries to go back online, setting A to "neutral" 3. it tries to resolve meta server, but B is "resolve error" since we haven't reached the timeout to set B to "neutral" as well 4. resolving meta server fails, but we don't continue with the next server
I believe my explanation is correct but it maybe needs more words for those who did not dig in the code. Should I use more verbose explanation similar to the one above?
Yes please.
Simo.
Hope this is clear now.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
I don't think you rephrasing is correct. What I'm trying to say is:
There are two meta server status:
- port status (A)
- srv lookup status (B)
- srv lookup fails, setting B to "resolve error" and A to "not
working", sssd goes offline 2. sssd tries to go back online, setting A to "neutral" 3. it tries to resolve meta server, but B is "resolve error" since we haven't reached the timeout to set B to "neutral" as well 4. resolving meta server fails, but we don't continue with the next server
I believe my explanation is correct but it maybe needs more words for those who did not dig in the code. Should I use more verbose explanation similar to the one above?
Yes please.
Simo.
Hope this is clear now.
Simo acked the commit message on IRC.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:01:52PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:05PM +0200, Pavel Březina wrote:
I don't think you rephrasing is correct. What I'm trying to say is:
There are two meta server status:
- port status (A)
- srv lookup status (B)
- srv lookup fails, setting B to "resolve error" and A to "not
working", sssd goes offline 2. sssd tries to go back online, setting A to "neutral" 3. it tries to resolve meta server, but B is "resolve error" since we haven't reached the timeout to set B to "neutral" as well 4. resolving meta server fails, but we don't continue with the next server
I believe my explanation is correct but it maybe needs more words for those who did not dig in the code. Should I use more verbose explanation similar to the one above?
Yes please.
Simo.
Hope this is clear now.
Simo acked the commit message on IRC.
* master - 5490fa3ea4f6a4118a5188acb0e05daa302ed9d6 * sssd-1-11 - 8b0aeee7fe668d8863699d942519a0ac51304049
sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
Jakub Hrozek -
Pavel Březina -
Pavel Reichl -
Simo Sorce