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)
>
> 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?
Yes please.
Simo.
Hope this is clear now.