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.
--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York