Hide Forgot
Created attachment 1108978 [details] vdsm.log (aqua-vds4, aqua-vds5), engine.log Description of problem: Supplying an ip address (not a hostname) for a creation of glusterfs SD causes a warning "possibly mounting duplicate server" in vdsm.log Version-Release number of selected component: vdsm-4.17.13-1.el7ev.noarch rhevm-3.6.1.3-0.1.el6.noarch How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: Taken from issue #1286428 1. Create gluster volume gluster volume create natalie replica 3 gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_1 gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_2 gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_3 gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_5 gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_4 gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:/gluster_volumes/natalie_brick_6 force 2. Create a storage domain, first round using ip address, second round using hostname. Actual results: 1. Using ip address, path supplied: 10.35.65.25:natalie vdsm.log (aqua-vds4): jsonrpc.Executor/4::WARNING::2015-12-22 16:51:09,402::storageServer::348::Storage.StorageServer.MountConnection::(_get_backup_servers_option) gluster server u'10.35.65.25' is not in bricks ['gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com', 'gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com'], possibly mounting duplicate server jsonrpc.Executor/4::DEBUG::2015-12-22 16:51:09,403::mount::229::Storage.Misc.excCmd::(_runcmd) /usr/bin/sudo -n /usr/bin/systemd-run --scope --slice=vdsm-glusterfs /usr/bin/mount -t glusterfs -o backup-volfile-servers=gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com 10.35.65.25:/natalie /rhev/data-center/mnt/glusterSD/10.35.65.25:_natalie (cwd None) 2. Using hostname, path supplied: gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:natalie vdsm.log (aqua-vds5): jsonrpc.Executor/1::DEBUG::2015-12-22 18:00:38,774::storageServer::342::Storage.StorageServer.MountConnection::(_get_backup_servers_option) Using bricks: ['gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com', 'gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com'] jsonrpc.Executor/1::DEBUG::2015-12-22 18:00:38,774::mount::229::Storage.Misc.excCmd::(_runcmd) /usr/bin/sudo -n /usr/bin/systemd-run --scope --slice=vdsm-glusterfs /usr/bin/mount -t glusterfs -o backup-volfile-servers=gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:natalie /rhev/data-center/mnt/glusterSD/gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com:natalie (cwd None) Expected results: The behaviour for using ip address should be the same as for using hostname. No warning: jsonrpc.Executor/4::WARNING::2015-12-22 16:51:09,402::storageServer::348::Storage.StorageServer.MountConnection::(_get_backup_servers_option) gluster server u'10.35.65.25' is not in bricks ['gluster-server01.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com', 'gluster-server02.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com'], possibly mounting duplicate servers /Mount Additional info: dig -x IP_ADDRESS might solve this.
Natalie iiuc this is just a log issue, right? This does not alter the behavior of adding the domain? Based on this assumption I'm targeting to 4.0
It is not about supplying ip address instead of host name. It is about creating gluster volumes using gluster servers host name and creating storage domain using gluster servers ip address or vice versa - creating gluster volumes using gluster servers ip address and creating storage domain using gluster servers host name. In these scenarios, when we invoke gluster getVolumeIfo, we get all gluster servers as created by the admin. Then we try to remove the provided one that is NOT in the list (remember: we created volumes using ip addresses and created the domain using host names), thus we see the provided server in the backup-volfile-servers option. There is no harm here. Doing dns name resolution may introduce more issues than fix this behavior. I will wait for your input before closing this.
Tal, It seems that the issue doesn't change the behaviour of adding a Gluster domain, but I must say there was no sanity testing made further, since this issue was found during the verification of issue #1286428. Ala, What's the question?
Talked to Natalie about this. Will check with gluster guys if there any harm doing this duplicate mount. If not, I will close this bug.
Might be a good idea to just needinfo them here for documentation purposes
Sahina confirmed in an email that there is no harm. For doc sake, Sahina, please confirm.
No harm with this duplicate mount. You can close this.