Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of shadowsor@gmail.com designates
 209.85.220.176 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4308CB64-E717-4856-A2DE-A9470AA1577B@clogeny.com>
References: <4308CB64-E717-4856-A2DE-A9470AA1577B@clogeny.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2013 10:07:03 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CALFpzo5N5zXtMfHewDFB3HuMUXYEeE764ZEZP-rn214PadsQCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Virtual router and vm on different hosts
From: Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b34346478c46c04e65a298e

--047d7b34346478c46c04e65a298e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Yes, as Marty mentions they can be on any host, with tagged vlans linking
everything together.If you prefer them on the same host you can write a
custom allocator. The user concentrated algorithm packs VMS together when
possible, and random allocator is self explanatory, but I don't think
either pay attention to the router/guest relationships.
On Sep 14, 2013 1:22 AM, "Girish Shilamkar" <girish@clogeny.com> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I was under the assumption that virtual router (VR) and vm spawned for an
> account would always be on the same host. Therefore in
> egress rule automation tests we were ssh'ing VR via host on which the vm
> was created. But recently we saw failures in egress rule tests
> as VR was not reachable from host on which vm was created. While debugging
> this issue I found that VR and vm for an account can be on different host.
> It would be great if someone could confirm this.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Regards,
> Girish
>
>

--047d7b34346478c46c04e65a298e--