Bug 486295
Summary: | /usr/sbin/clurmtabd deprecated? | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Juanjo Villaplana <villapla> |
Component: | rgmanager | Assignee: | Lon Hohberger <lhh> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Cluster QE <mspqa-list> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | 5.3 | CC: | cluster-maint, edamato |
Target Milestone: | rc | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-02-19 15:56:31 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Juanjo Villaplana
2009-02-19 09:25:37 UTC
Client mount mapping and the process for generating them changed in the 2.6 kernel, obsoleting clurmtabd. When clients retry after a failure on a Linux 2.6 server, the mount entries are repopulated based on the ACL, rather than going down to rpc.mountd and asking if there's a client:path:refcount entry for that host in /var/lib/nfs/rmtab. So, whether the client had previously mounted or not doesn't matter any more. The server assumes that if a client thought it had mounted the file system, and indeed the client is in the ACL, that it ought to trust the client's state and act as though the client had mounted the file system previously. Because of this, clurmtabd is actually not needed. I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't removed from the build. Additionally, clurmtabd apparently doesn't correctly handle the rather different rmtab format from Linux 2.6, so even turning it on won't do anything useful without rewriting it first. Clurmtabd was removed upstream some time ago. We can remove clurmtabd and clurmtabd.8 from the distribution as a matter of cleanliness, but apart from that, I don't see any other 'resolution' to this. OK. This is the right resolution. The official RHCS documentation is very limited, so removing deprecated components will reduce our reverse engineering efforts in order to search for the full description/options of RHCS components and service options :-\ |