Re: [ANNOUNCE] autofs 5.1.2 release

[Ian Kent <raven@themaw.net>]

On 20/12/17 13:52, Ian Kent wrote:
> On 20/12/17 11:29, NeilBrown wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ian,
>>  I've been looking at:
>>
>>> - add configuration option to use fqdn in mounts.
>>
>> (commit 9aeef772604) because using this new option causes a regression.
>> If you are using the "replicated server" functionality, then
>>   use_hostname_for_mounts = yes
>> completely disables it.
> 
> Yes, that's not quite right.
> 
> It disables the probe and proximity check for each distinct host
> name used.
> 
> Each of the entries in the list of hosts should still be
> attempted and given that NFS ping is also now used in the NFS
> mount module what's lost is the preferred ordering of the hosts
> list.
> 
>>
>> This is caused by:
>>
>> diff --git a/modules/replicated.c b/modules/replicated.c
>> index 32860d5fe245..8437f5f3d5b2 100644
>> --- a/modules/replicated.c
>> +++ b/modules/replicated.c
>> @@ -667,6 +667,12 @@ int prune_host_list(unsigned logopt, struct host **list,
>>         if (!*list)
>>                 return 0;
>>  
>> +       /* If we're using the host name then there's no point probing
>> +        * avialability and respose time.
>> +        */
>> +       if (defaults_use_hostname_for_mounts())
>> +               return 1;
>> +
>>         /* Use closest hosts to choose NFS version */
>>
>> My question is: why what this particular change made.
> 
> It was a while ago but there were complains about using the IP
> address for mounts. It was requested to provide a way to prevent
> that and force the use of the host name in mounts.
> 
>> Why can't prune_host_list() be allowed to do it's thing
>> when use_hostname_for_mounts is set.
> 
> We could if each host name resolved to a single IP address.
> 
> I'd need to check that use_hostname_for_mounts doesn't get
> in the road but the host struct should have ->rr set to true
> if it has multiple addresses so changing it to work the way
> your recommending shouldn't be hard. I think there's a couple
> of places that would need to be checked.
> 
> If the host does resolve to multiple addresses the situation
> is different. There's no way to stop the actual mount from
> trying an IP address that's not responding and proximity
> doesn't make sense either again because every time a lookup
> is done on the host name (eg. at mount time) the next address
> in its list will be returned which can and usually is different
> from what would have been checked.
> 
>> I understand that it would be pointless choosing between
>> the different interfaces of a multi-homed host, but there is still value
>> in choosing between multiple distinct hosts.
>>
>> What, if anything, might go wrong if I simply reverse this chunk of the
>> patch?
> 
> You'll get IP addresses in the logs in certain cases but that
> should be all.
> 
> It would probably be better to ensure that the checks are done
> if the host name resolves to a single IP address.

I think that should be "if the host names in the list each resolve
to a single IP address", otherwise the round robin behavior would
probably still get in the road.

Ian