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 _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/sssd-devel
