From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Seewer Philippe Subject: Re: dracut requires router Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:17:19 +0200 Message-ID: <4CAF27EF.80301@bfh.ch> References: <4CAEF060.8030701@draigBrady.com> <4CAF1D02.6060701@bfh.ch> <4CAF23BA.4010605@draigBrady.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4CAF23BA.4010605-V8g9lnOeT5ydJdNcDFJN0w@public.gmane.org> Sender: initramfs-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed" To: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWcgQnJhZHk=?= Cc: "initramfs-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" On 10/08/2010 03:59 PM, P=C3=A1draig Brady wrote: > On 08/10/10 14:30, Seewer Philippe wrote: >> On 10/08/2010 12:20 PM, P=C3=A1draig Brady wrote: >>> My terminals just failed to boot because the router >>> was (temporarily) unavailable. Seems this is on purpose? >>> >>> http://dracut.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=3Ddracut/dracut;= a=3Dcommit;h=3D98f25e96 >>> >>> >>> I don't know what the above is trying to do exactly. >> >> What this does ist simply try and give a possible router enough time= to >> update its STP caches (See >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanning_tree_protocol) so that subsequ= ent >> mount attempts don't fail because the router isn't ready. >> >> So yes, it is on purpose if the available IP information contains ro= uters. >> >> I Hope this helps > > Thanks for the info, but. > Is it right to do this synchronously with such a long timeout? It has to be done synchronously, sorry. We have to be sure the router i= s=20 there and ready if the rootserver is behind the router. As for the timeout: STP can take between 30-60 seconds. (There's a=20 reason why there's newer protocols like RSTP etc). > Is it right to die if we can't contact the router? Usually yes. Either because the rootserver is behind the router or if=20 you supplied routing information it's safe to assume that later you wan= t=20 it to work anyway. But yes, usually. I would have preferred to somehow a subnet check on=20 the rootserver to decide what or if to check. But alas, not all netroot= =20 variants know the ip of their rootserver at that point. I'm always open for ideas on how to improve this. Regards, Philippe