In message <z7-i7o2gpsqjv...@cell.glebi.us>, Gleb Smirnoff writes: > Hi guys, > > replying to all, asnwering Chris and Cy emails that I did not reply earlier. > I > trimmed quoting, but of course I've read your emails! > > Point 1. Please let's forget about 'late' option and any other rc(8) hints a > nd > magic. As I already explained the problem can (and usually does) live outsid > e > of the particular host that does the mount. It could be a boot race of a bun > ch > of networking equipment, it could be some other network outage, etc. > > Point 2. Both Chris and Cy said that this is not a bug, since it was there fo > r > so many years. Sorry, this argument doesn't buys me. It is a typical > cognitive distortion named "normalization" or "desensitization," where an > individual becomes so accustomed to a negative situation that they no longer > recognize it as problematic. I am also affected by that, and it is very good > practice sometimes to force yourself to look at something with a fresh look. > With a fresh look a suggestion to hardcode IP addresses in hosts(5) or doesn' > t > look scalable neither modern option. I totally agree that in certain setups > it > is the right way to do, but not always.
This argument makes the point that the industry is wrong. I don't quite buy that either. I suppose more investigation would be required to find out why. On the flip side, when I was working on Solaris we didn't rely solely on DNS. We used NIS+ built on top of ONC+ (not to be confused with NIS built on top of ONC). There we had multiple NIS+ replicas on each network segment. In today's world we use LDAP. > > Point 3. I got our concern on a mount_nfs(8) blocking on a DNS resolution > viewed as a POLA violation. So I suggest a trade-off: let's isolate the > retrying behavior only to the background mode. That would fix the problem of > machine booting without mounts and is very unlikely to affect anyones POLA > feelings: > > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D49145 This would be acceptable. If an admin does have a chronic DNS issues, said admin could add the IP to hosts(5). > > As the review text notes at the end we got a problem in the libc > getaddrinfo(3). Rick also noticed it earlier when making his patch. Our > resolver can't tell us a negative answer versus a timeour. This definitely i > s > a problem and I already started investigating it. But definitely out of scop > e > of NFS. > > -- > Gleb Smirnoff -- Cheers, Cy Schubert <cy.schub...@cschubert.com> FreeBSD UNIX: <c...@freebsd.org> Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: <c...@nwtime.org> Web: https://nwtime.org e^(i*pi)+1=0
