cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joris van Lieshout <JvanLiesh...@schubergphilis.com>
Subject Re: VPC's VR missing public NIC eth1
Date Fri, 30 May 2014 06:27:07 GMT
Hi Andrija,

Daan asked me to have a look at this as well. Looking at you issue I
recall having seen something similar. Back then when upgrading 4.2.1 to
4.3 I though it had to do with out own custom build svm template.
Let me fire off some questions before explaining what the cause was in our
case. :)

- what hypervisor (and version) are you using?
- if XS, is the new VR a para-virtualised instance (PV) or hardware
assisted (HVM)? Do a "xe vm-param-list" on the VR uuid and check that
param PV-args is set and HVM-boot-policy is unset.
- what is the OS type of the VR in ACS (guest_os_id in vm_instance table
and match with table guest_os)
- what is the OS type of the SVM template?

Now for the explaining. :)
In our case the OS type of the new template was not supported on the
XenServer version we are running. Therefore the VR was started by XS as a
HVM guest. System vms on XS rely on the arguments passed to them in the
PV-args param (ends up on the guest in /var/cache/cloud/cmdline which in
turn is used by cloud-early-config) in order to work. cmdline contains the
NIC configuration information.
So, long story short, if a VR gets started as a HVM it will not get the
information needed to configure it's NICs.

Workaround
We corrected the os_type_id in the DB (yes I know editing the DB is
something you usually don't want but there is no other way in this case)
of the existing VR's and of the systemvmtemplate to something supported by
XenServer.

Kind regards,
Joris van Lieshout

Schuberg Philis




On 29/05/14 12:18, "Andrija Panic" <andrija.panic@gmail.com> wrote:

>They are 2 traffic types on 1 physical net (that is both tagged vlan 500,
>and untagged packets travel over same KVM bridge, and over eth1 to outside
>world)...
>
>
>On 29 May 2014 12:04, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Are these two traffic types in one physical net? or two physical nets
>> on the same interface (seems wrong).
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Jayapal Reddy Uradi
>> <jayapalreddy.uradi@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > I don't think editing DB table will work.
>> >
>> > -Jayapal
>> > On 29-May-2014, at 2:52 PM, Andrija Panic <andrija.panic@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's like this:
>> >>
>> >> I have public subnet /24.
>> >>
>> >> half is dedicated for Guest traffic (vlan 500) and the second half is
>> >> dedicated to Public traffic/network (no vlan tags, that is untagged
>> packets)
>> >>
>> >> Both vlan500 and untagged packets travel over physical eth1
>>interface on
>> >> hypervisors and can reach Internet.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 29 May 2014 11:06, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Andrija Panic <
>> andrija.panic@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> 500
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> is 500 the vlan of your guestnetwork or your physical network? You
>> >>> wouldn't want to have two nets with vlan 500!
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Daan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Andrija Panić
>> >> --------------------------------------
>> >>  http://admintweets.com
>> >> --------------------------------------
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>
>
>
>-- 
>
>Andrija Panić
>--------------------------------------
>  http://admintweets.com
>--------------------------------------


Mime
View raw message