On 3 Dec 2012, at 17:25, Andy Doan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 12/03/2012 02:37 AM, Dave Pigott wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I've been worrying this one all weekend, and woke up this morning at
>> 3:30AM with it all whirling round my head. I think I have an outline
>> of how we're going to manage this, and I would like to get your
>> comments/additions/brickbats before I add it all to the BP:
>> 
>> 1) Move over to MAC address based DHCP serving for all
>> infrastructure Currently the IP address of every device in the
>> infrastructure (cloud nodes, gateway, control etc etc etc) is all
>> done by static assignment. This is bad for a number of reasons. My
>> only concern here (lack of knowledge, rather than well founded fear)
>> is on control itself. Can the DHCP server serve itself an IP address,
>> or is this going to be the one exception?
> 
> The DHCP server should have its IP done statically. Also - I think we should 
> use dnsmasqd's dhcp server. This would allow us to manage DHCP from our 
> ssh-gateway (192.168.1.32). However, I'm not sure if that would interfere 
> with our main lab router setup. dnsmasq is cool because it would allow us to 
> define things in one like:
> 
> #somewhere in /etc/dnsmasq.conf:
> dhcp-host=11:22:33:44:55:66,foo,192.168.0.10

OK - So you're suggesting that gateway becomes our dhcp server, right? I was 
thinking about doing this as well, but I worried that we might be changing too 
many things at once. However, I'll take a look at dnsmasq as a way forward.

> 
> 
>> 2) Reserve 192.168.0.x for the public IP addresses for Cloud
>> instances and 192.168.1.x for infrastructure. I'm pretty sure I can
>> do this in dhcp.conf. Essentially this is a block list that only
>> serves in those spaces if they are explicitly assigned by MAC
>> addresses. The reason for this is trying to maintain the small
>> existing cloud IP pool, which can't be assigned by dhcp MAC address,
>> because it's managed by the cloud. (See my self argument in point
>> 4.)
> 
> I'm not sure how much we have to worry about MACs and if it goes in 
> 192.168.0.x or 192.168.1.x. I *think dnsmasqd will register the ip address 
> with its DNS server when the DHCP server gives out an address. dhcpd has 
> something similar as well (a rough link not verified):
> 
> http://www.held.org.il/blog/2011/01/make-dhcp-auto-update-dynamic-dns/
> 
>> 3) Go round every infrastructure node, and move it to dhcp served
>> address
> 
> +1
> 
>> 4) Drop the cloud pool of IP addresses and create the new range and
>> restart the instances of the cloud. Alternatively, I could just
>> extend the pool to add the 192.168.0.x range. This is less disruptive
>> because it means the existing instances won't have to be
>> re-started/re-created. I think I +1 this myself. :D
> 
> don't know enough about openstack, but sounds sensible.
> 
>> 5) Reconfigure dhcp.conf to 192.168.x.x/16
> 
> if you do 4, you might want to make sure you exclude 192.168.0.x from the 
> range it assigns. Also - maybe not dhcp.conf :)

Yeah, that was sort of what I was trying to say in point 2.

> 
>> 6 Restart DHCP
>> 
>> 7) Restart networking on every node
>> 
>> My concern here would be that this will mean some disruption, so I
>> would recommend that we wait until I have the new scheduler backup
>> server in place so that we don't lose any jobs. Once control is back
>> up we should run some test jobs through it just to be on the safe
>> side.
> 
> I think we'll have to assume some downtime for this. I'm not sure how having 
> a backup scheduler helps much. These changes are probably going to know 
> everything offline for a period of time, no?

Well, yes, but not much, at least not the way I was thinking of doing it. 
Essentially, I would make the changes to dhcp, restart dhcp, and then go round 
each node reconfiguring and restarting networking. That *should* mean very 
little disruption. If we're going to move to dnsmasq, a similar approach could 
be taken, in that we simultaneously take down dhcp on control and start dnsmasq 
on gateway, and then go round restarting everything.

Dave


_______________________________________________
linaro-validation mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-validation

Reply via email to