On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 12:54:49PM +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> schrieb am 21.12.2015 um 11:40 in > Nachricht <20151221104011.GB9783@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@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 _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@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