[PVE-User] Problems with backup process and NFS

[Uwe Sauter]

>>> perl -e 'use strict; use warnings; use PVE::ProcFSTools; use Data::Dumper; print Dumper(PVE::ProcFSTools::parse_proc_mounts());'
>>>
>>
>> $VAR1 = [
>> ....
>>           [
>>             '<hostname of NFS server>:/backup/proxmox-infra',
>>             '/mnt/pve/aurel',
>>             'nfs',
>>             'rw,relatime,vers=3,rsize=1048576,wsize=1048576,namlen=255,hard,proto=tcp,timeo=600,retrans=2,sec=sys,mountaddr=<if of
>> NFS server>,mountvers=3,mountport=892,mountproto=tcp,local_lock=none,addr=<ip of NFS server>',
>>             '0',
>>             '0'
>>           ],
>> .....
>>         ];
>>
> 
> the culprit is likely that your storage.cfg contains the IP, but your
> /proc/mounts contains the hostname (with a reverse lookup inbetween?).
> 

I was following https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Storage:_NFS , quote: "To avoid DNS lookup delays, it is usually preferable to use an
IP address instead of a DNS name". But yes, the DNS in our environment is configured to allow reverse lookups.

> can you test using the hostname in your storage.cfg instead of the IP?

I removed the former definition and umounted the NFS share on all nodes. BTW, why is a storage not umounted when it is deleted
from the WebUI?

Now storage definition looks like:

nfs: aurel
	export /backup/proxmox-infra
	path /mnt/pve/aurel
	server aurel.XXXXX.de
	content backup
	maxfiles 30
	options vers=3


With this definition, the backup succeeded (and I got mails back from each host).


So it seems that the recommendation from the wiki prevents PVE's mechanism from working properly (when being used in an
environment where reverse name lookups are correctly configured).

>>
>> I tested the bakcup job with a local storage and then I got emails. So it is definitivly something related to NFS and backups, not
>> the mailing mechansim.
>>
> 
> yes and no - nothing special about NFS here, would be triggered by any
> storage where storage_info (or the sub call to activate_storage) fails.
> 
> see my proposed patch for #1389 on pve-devel:
> https://pve.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2017-May/026511.html
> 

I'm not familiar enough with Perl to be able to comment whether this is enough…