On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 01:39:25PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 07/08/15 12:59 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 07, 2015 at 12:10:56PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 > >> > >> On 07/08/15 11:30 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > >>> On Thu, Aug 06, 2015 at 08:07:44PM -0400, Ian Stakenvicius > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Can we get "nofail" immediately in the mount -a variants of > >>>> localmount/netmount and expand that in netmount to make the > >>>> nfsclient dep be a "use" or a "need" depending on if it's set > >>>> or not?? That would imo kill the existing bug that started > >>>> all of this too. > >>> > >>> Sure, I can get the nofail support in pretty quick, and I > >>> think that is a feature we should have. > >>> > >>> Right now, netmount is using the use dependency to make sure > >>> network file system utilities are started before us. Because > >>> of the all-or-nothing nature of netmount, we can't switch > >>> those dependencies to need. It would cause netmount to fail if > >>> one of those utilities fails to start. The use dependency is > >>> the best one we can use at this time, and a migration path was > >>> specifically laid out in the news item. > >>> > >> > >> My thinking here is that, unless network mounts in fstab are > >> listed as 'nofail', that netmount failing due to the dependent > >> services not being able to start would be a valid case. > >> Sysadmins that don't want netmount to fail no matter what would > >> be able to use 'nofail' to ensure that happens. > >> > >> This is of course predicated on (1) it being a good idea, and > >> (2) fstabinfo or whatever the check currently is that would add > >> nfsclient to depend() could easily swap 'use' for 'need' based on > >> the (lack of) existence of the nofail attribute in fstab. > > > > The issue with using the need dependency is that netmount is not > > granular enough. It mounts all types of network file systems, so if > > we fail because nfs is a need dependency and doesn't start, no > > other types of network file systems that use daemons will be > > mounted. That's what I meant by all-or-nothing. > > > > William > > > > Yes I follow that. My thoughts are #1, netmount (and localmount for > that matter) are all-or-nothing things; so if the service fails then I > don't think anything can necessarily be assumed as to which mounts > succeeded and which don't.
Yes, they are, but mount and umount -a are not. They can report partial failures (check the exit codes). If I switch to using need dependencies for the file system clients, and one fails to start, mount -a would never run, which means NO net-based file systems that use clients would be mounted. My thinking is to allow things to mount that can, but still report it as a failure if everything doesn't mount. Thoughts? William
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
