[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Notice: SLES11SP4 broke exportfs!

[Dejan Muhamedagic]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:54:49PM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> >>> Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> schrieb am 21.12.2015 um 11:40 in
> Nachricht <20151221104011.GB9783 at walrus.homenet>:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 07:27:28PM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> 
> >> After updating from SLES11SP3 (june version) to SLES11SP4 (todays version) 
> > exportfs fails to get the export status. I have message like this in syslog:
> >> 
> >> Dec 11 19:22:09 h04 crmd[11128]:   notice: process_lrm_event: 
> > rksaph04-prm_nfs_c11_mnt_exp_monitor_0:93 [ 
> > /usr/lib/ocf/resource.d/heartbeat/exportfs: line 178: 4f838db1: value too 
> > great for base (error token is "4f838db1")\n ]
> > 
> > The value of the fsid is unexpected. The code (and I) assumed
> > that it would be decimal and that's mentioned in the fsid
> > meta-data description.
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Really? crm(live)# ra info exportfs:
> 
> [...]
> fsid* (string): Unique fsid within cluster or starting fsid for multiple exports
> .
>     The fsid option to pass to exportfs. This can be a unique positive
>     integer, a UUID, or the special string "root" which is functionally
>     identical to numeric fsid of 0.
>     If multiple directories are being exported, then they are
>     assigned ids sequentially starting with this fsid (fsid, fsid+1,
>     fsid+2, ...). Obviously, in that case the fsid must be an
>     integer.

	  Here ^^^

>     0 (root) identifies the export as the root of an NFSv4
>     pseudofilesystem -- avoid this setting unless you understand its
>     special status.
>     This value will override any fsid provided via the options parameter.
> [...]
> 
> Did you read "UUID" also? 
> 
> > 
> >> Why is such broken code released? Here's the diff:
> > 
> > I suspect that every newly released code is broken in some way
> > for some deployments.
> 
> The code clearly does not match the description, and it is broken.

The code _should_ match the description, but, as we all
concluded, there's a bug.

> I would also expect that "validate" would report values for fsid it cannot handle.
> Furthermose I see no sense in trying to increment a fsid.
> 
> Maybe you can explain.

The RA tries to increase the fsid for a one-directory
configuration. Erroneously. It needs to be fixed _not_ to
manipulate the fsid for such configurations.

Thanks,

Dejan

> 
> Regards,
> Ulrich
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> 
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org