Re: SSVM could not access Management Server.
Thanks Rajani, I checked that the agent is running on SSVM: root@s-1-VM:~# service cloud status CloudStack cloud service (type=secstorage) is running: process id: 3887 When I run *SSVM health check, it outputs:First DNS server is 192.168.0.100PING 192.168.0.100 (192.168.0.100): 56 data bytes64 bytes from 192.168.0.22 http://192.168.0.22: Destination Host UnreachableVr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst Data 4 5 00 5400 4859 0 0040 40 01 f05f 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.100 64 bytes from 192.168.0.22 http://192.168.0.22: Destination Host UnreachableVr HL TOS Len ID Flg off TTL Pro cks Src Dst Data 4 5 00 5400 4959 0 0040 40 01 ef5f 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.100 --- 192.168.0.100 ping statistics ---2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet lossWARNING: cannot ping DNS serverroute followsKernel IP routing tableDestination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3* *Actually although DNS server is set to * *192.168.0.100( as it is the internal NIC of the Management Server), there are nothing on it. Just /etc/hosts mappings of hostnames and IPs.* *Could this DNS IP settings a problem? Or I should set it to 8.8.8.8, but this VMs are just private and not visible to the outside, confused here.* *cheers,Dan* 2014-11-10 22:14 GMT-06:00 Rajani Karuturi raj...@apache.org: Did you check if the agent is running on SSVM? This wiki might help. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/SSVM,+templates,+Secondary+storage+troubleshooting ~Rajani On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com wrote: Some more info, on SSVM I can see the following routes, there is route there, so why SSVM(eth2: 192.168.0.134) could not contact Management Server(192.168.0.100)? Can someone help here? Thanks root@s-1-VM:~# ip route default via 192.168.0.100 dev eth2 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.1.47 172.20.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 172.20.10.30 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.134 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.25 2014-11-10 15:12 GMT-06:00 Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com: Hi, All, When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): 1. Management server have 2 NICs: em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS and Gateway of the cloud) 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of 192.168.0.0/24 The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial network design of the cloud? Thanks! Cheers, Dan
SSVM could not access Management Server.
Hi, All, When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): 1. Management server have 2 NICs: em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS and Gateway of the cloud) 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of 192.168.0.0/24 The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial network design of the cloud? Thanks! Cheers, Dan
Re: SSVM could not access Management Server.
Some more info, on SSVM I can see the following routes, there is route there, so why SSVM(eth2: 192.168.0.134) could not contact Management Server(192.168.0.100)? Can someone help here? Thanks root@s-1-VM:~# ip route default via 192.168.0.100 dev eth2 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.1.47 172.20.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 172.20.10.30 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.134 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.25 2014-11-10 15:12 GMT-06:00 Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com: Hi, All, When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): 1. Management server have 2 NICs: em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS and Gateway of the cloud) 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of 192.168.0.0/24 The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial network design of the cloud? Thanks! Cheers, Dan
Re: SSVM could not access Management Server.
Did you check if the agent is running on SSVM? This wiki might help. https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/SSVM,+templates,+Secondary+storage+troubleshooting ~Rajani On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com wrote: Some more info, on SSVM I can see the following routes, there is route there, so why SSVM(eth2: 192.168.0.134) could not contact Management Server(192.168.0.100)? Can someone help here? Thanks root@s-1-VM:~# ip route default via 192.168.0.100 dev eth2 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.1.47 172.20.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 172.20.10.30 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.134 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.25 2014-11-10 15:12 GMT-06:00 Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com: Hi, All, When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): 1. Management server have 2 NICs: em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS and Gateway of the cloud) 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of 192.168.0.0/24 The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial network design of the cloud? Thanks! Cheers, Dan
Re: SSVM could not access Management Server.
Maybe the problem is in the NIC configurations on the KVM Hypervisor? auto em1 iface em1 inet static address 192.168.0.101 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway 192.168.0.100 dns-nameservers 192.168.0.100 auto cloudbr0 ... auto cloudbr1 ... Note that the default GW is pointed to the internal NIC of the Management server, so why the KVM host could ping the Management server and access the outside internet, but the SSVM running in this KVM could not? Any hints ? Dan 在 Nov 10, 2014，5:34 PM，Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com 写道： Some more info, on SSVM I can see the following routes, there is route there, so why SSVM(eth2: 192.168.0.134) could not contact Management Server(192.168.0.100)? Can someone help here? Thanks root@s-1-VM:~# ip route default via 192.168.0.100 dev eth2 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 169.254.1.47 172.20.10.0/24 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 172.20.10.30 via 192.168.0.100 dev eth1 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.22 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.134 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.25 2014-11-10 15:12 GMT-06:00 Dan Dong dongda...@gmail.com: Hi, All, When debugging why my ISOs could not be registered, I found when I logged into SSVM, I could not even ping the Management Server, although they are both in the 192.168.0.0/24 network, so of course could not ping outside world. Here are my simple network settings of my cloud(1Management Server + 1 KVM hypervisor): 1. Management server have 2 NICs: em2 pointing outside with 10.0.0.100/24 em1 pointing inside with 192.168.0.100/24 (also serves as DNS and Gateway of the cloud) 2. One KVM hypervisor which has 1 NIC: em1 with 192.168.0.101/24 3. VMs created on KVM hypervisor will sit on the same network of 192.168.0.0/24 The weird thing is that I can access the internet from the KVM hypervisor as NAT is enabled on the Management Server, but for the SSVM(IP of eth2: 192.168.0.89) running on it, it could not even see the Management Server(192.168.0.100 on em1). Should one manually re-configure routing tables on the SSVM to solve this problem or it is caused by the initial network design of the cloud? Thanks! Cheers, Dan
