From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E9691FF146 for ; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:24:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5C98A21447; Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:24:27 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Fiona Ebner Subject: superseded: [PATCH storage v4 2/2] nfs: use rpcinfo as a showmount fallback for nfs3 In-Reply-To: (Fiona Ebner's message of "Tue, 7 Jul 2026 10:06:43 +0200") References: <20260706143638.509139-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20260706143638.509139-3-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:24:23 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783412656533 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: N52Q3I2Q7VHTW5XK4LTKBK25HKTNRLW3 X-Message-ID-Hash: N52Q3I2Q7VHTW5XK4LTKBK25HKTNRLW3 X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Fiona Ebner writes: > Am 07.07.26 um 9:37 AM schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >> Fiona Ebner writes: >> >>> Am 06.07.26 um 4:37 PM schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >>>> diff --git a/src/PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm b/src/PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm >>>> index 56dbd9ec..4fe7695a 100644 >>>> --- a/src/PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm >>>> +++ b/src/PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm >>>> @@ -198,6 +198,11 @@ sub check_connection { >>>> # no exports are listed >>>> $cmd = $nfs_get_rpcinfo_command->($server, '4'); >>>> } else { >>>> + # FIXME: PVE 10: Consider switching to rpcinfo altogether. >>>> + # There are some potential pitfalls: >>>> + # - Some NFSv3 servers might only support UDP (cf. RFC 1813, Section 2.3) >>>> + # - The two timeouts add up to a potential worst-case scenario of 20 seconds >>> >>> This is not a pitfall for to the switch to rpcinfo, but related to your >>> current implementation with showmount+rpcinfo. It's rather easy to spot, >>> so not sure it needs a comment in the code. I'd rather have it in the >>> commit message. >> >> Running into timeouts is a very common issue in Enterprise support, I do >> have a strong preference for keeping it as explicit as possible. > > But please don't mention it in the pitfalls for the switch to rpcbind, > but clearly state that it's about the current implementation. Otherwise, > that is just confusing. Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20260707082332.111714-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com/T/#u -- Maximiliano