cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: VPC's VR missing public NIC eth1
Date Tue, 03 Jun 2014 21:22:53 GMT
Hmm.. ok. I guess we can apply the bandaid patch as well


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:

> I checked in a commit: 5e80e5d33d9a295b91cdba9377f52d9d963d802a, which
> will fix some of the mess of vlan id.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marcus [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2014 9:57 AM
> > To: Daan Hoogland
> > Cc: dev
> > Subject: Re: VPC's VR missing public NIC eth1
> >
> > Ok, thanks. It seems there are other cases where the Command being
> > passed from the mgmt server has inconsistent broadcastUri as well, this
> > should blanket fix them. In the meantime there's a growing group of 4.3
> > upgraders who are getting pitchforks out over at CLOUDSTACK-6464, so we
> > may want to have something in 4.3.1 too.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 12:30 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > one clarification, I was not suggesting changing vlan://x back to x,
> > > just the case where x==untagged. I had a little analog discussion with
> > > Hugo and he convinced me that untagged has no special meaning in SDN
> > > cases, maybe for vxlan. So the problem I saw is at least smaller then
> > > in my mind.
> > >
> > > I have committed the db change to update 4.3.0 to 4.4.0. It will need
> > > heavy testing. And I didn't extensively look into other tables that
> > > need such a change. networks is the likely candidate but there may be
> > > others.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Just to recap... I was trying to review the issue in my head and
> > > > thought
> > > it
> > > > might be useful to write it down.
> > > >
> > > > in 4.3 we got the BroadcastDomainType enum introduced, and many
> > > > parts of
> > > the
> > > > code were changed to use that when dealing with the vlan id. This
> > > > code, among other things, returns a vlan id in URI format,
> > > > describing both the technology used to provide the virtual lan,
> > > > along with the id. Along the
> > > way
> > > > this seems to have caused the value itself to be stored as a URI
> > > > (still
> > > not
> > > > sure where, by whom, or if it was intentional). That was fine and
> > > > seemed
> > > to
> > > > work after some fixing, until there was an upgrade done where the
> > > existing
> > > > database value was NOT in URI format. We had a few places where the
> > > > code
> > > was
> > > > never changed to use BroadcastDomainType to 'normalize' the info
> > > > from the database (e.g. the IpAssocVpcCommand the mgmt server
> > > > constructs), so upgrades are broken.
> > > >
> > > > Most places in the code as it is now are working with a live value
> > > > of 'vlan://x', regardless of whether the database has 'vlan://x' or
> > > > just
> > > 'x',
> > > > thanks to this code it returns the same 'vlan://' for either stored
> > > value.
> > > > For these places it shouldn't matter if we fix the old databases to
> > > > store 'vlan://x' or the 4.3 installs to go back to 'x'.
> > > >
> > > > However, there are a few places that are broken, like this
> > > IpAssocVpcCommand
> > > > the mgmt server creates and CLOUDSTACK-5505. If we switch the db
> > > > value
> > > back,
> > > > we have to identify all of the outstanding ones and fix them. In
> > > addition,
> > > > new code since then may have perhaps assumed that the db value is
> > > 'vlan://',
> > > > and might have bothered to pass through the interpolation, so they
> > > > may
> > > break
> > > > as well. If we had full coverage on the test suite it would be easy
> > > > to change the value back in the DB of a 4.3 or 4.4 install and see
> > > > what
> > > breaks.
> > > >
> > > > If we don't switch the value back, and instead update old databases
> > > > to
> > > the
> > > > current way, it fixes the immediate issue but we end up with code
> > > > doing
> > > the
> > > > same thing in two different ways. Some places will be using the raw
> > > > db
> > > value
> > > > and other places will be asking for it to be normalized, and both
> > > > will
> > > have
> > > > the same result, which is kind of messy and prone to causing issues
> > > > down
> > > the
> > > > road if something changes again to separate these two.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm not sure the KVM code needs to be changed, you're asking it to
> > > >> deal with an inconsistency from the mgmt server. Don't you find it
> > > >> odd that
> > > one
> > > >> Command from the mgmt server provides
> > > >> broadcastUri="vlan://untagged" and another provides
> > > >> broadcastUri="untagged"?  I'm not sure I understand why changing
> > > >> 'untagged' into a URI format changes its meaning, but it seems
> > > like
> > > >> that doesn't make any sense to you, so perhaps we can break that
> > > >> out
> > > into a
> > > >> separate column so that we can still capture the info, if needed.
> > > >>
> > > >> If we don't like URI format for the vlan id, that's fine, but we
> > > >> need to do changes to the 4.3 installs and fix 4.4. As mentioned,
I
> > > >> remember
> > > there
> > > >> being a decent amount of work to handle the "vlan://" when it was
> > > >> introduced, and that will need to be done again to change it back.
> > > >> I'm
> > > not
> > > >> against that, but I'm not going to be the one doing that work,
> > > >> either
> > > :-)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 3:47 AM, Daan Hoogland
> > > >> <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I don't think this should be solved this way afterall. 'untagged'
> > > >>> actually means no vlan, so it should not be prepended with
> 'vlan://'.
> > > >>> I think the kvm code should be fixed for this not the generic
code.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Daan Hoogland <
> > > daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>> > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Marcus <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>> >> Looks good to me, aside from he debug statement.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > Ah, the first line was not in my line of sight.
> > > >>> > --
> > > >>> > Daan
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Daan
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message