I have a T5140 and a T5120, let's call the T5120 "ControlLDom1" and the T5140
"ControlLDom2".
Both systems are running LDoms 2.1 with Solaris 10 9/10 in the Control LDoms.
Firmware 7.4.0.d on both.
I was trying to migrate a client LDom (let's call it "ClientLDom") from the
T5120 back to its original home on the T5140.
It failed:
--
ControlLDom1:1:1037 [/root] # ldm migrate-domain ClientLDom
root@ControlLDom2:ClientLDom
Target Password:
MAC address 00:14:4f:f8:f0:5f is already in use
Failed to recreate domain on target machine
Domain Migration of LDom ClientLDom failed
ControlLDom1:1:1038 [/root] # ldm list-constraints ClientLDom | grep 0:14:4f
ControlLDom1:1:1039 [/root] # ldm list-bindings ClientLDom | grep 0:14:4f
vnet0 primary-vsw0 0
00:14:4f:fb:cc:29 1
--
You can see that the MAC address it was using on the source T5120 is obviously
not the same as "00:14:4f:f8:f0:5f".
This was very strange. The "00:14:4f:f8:f0:5f" MAC layer address is the VSW
MAC address for "ControlLDom2"!
--
ControlLDom2:1:880 [/root] # ldm list-bindings primary
NAME STATE FLAGS CONS VCPU MEMORY UTIL UPTIME
primary active -n-cv- SP 4 4G 1.9% 1d 11h 31m
UUID
751509c4-0673-4c0a-b559-XXXXXXXXXXXX
MAC
00:21:28:34:8a:ae
[...]
VSW
NAME MAC NET-DEV ID DEVICE LINKPROP
DEFAULT-VLAN-ID PVID VID MTU MODE INTER-VNET-LINK
primary-vsw0 00:14:4f:f8:f0:5f nxge0 0 switch@0 1
1 1500 on
*** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
PEER MAC PVID VID
MTU LINKPROP INTERVNETLINK
vnet0@AnotherClientLDom 00:14:4f:fb:25:e1 1
1500
--
(There was already a different Client LDom on the ControlLDom2 T5140, thus the
"PEER" output.)
You can see the "00:14:4f:f8:f0:5f" MAC address in the "primary-vsw0" setting
for the primary.
I'm assuming that when "ldm migrate-domain" runs, the receiving Control LDom
tries to allocate a MAC address for the new LDom automatically.
If so, then why the heck did it try to assign the MAC address it is already
using itself, for the VSW???
Google got me no hits on this whatsoever.
Eventually I gave up and just manually created the Client LDom and manually
migrated the LDom over, but this is very disappointing.
<rant>
It's bad enough that I can't do Live Migrations because of the requirement for
shared storage (that seems silly - these things have internal SAS drives, why
would I want to use shared storage for Client LDoms?), but I can't even do a
cold migration now? What gives?
</rant>
- Greg
_______________________________________________
ldoms-discuss mailing list
ldoms-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ldoms-discuss
