Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Karli Sjöberg]

Den 8 jan. 2018 08:32 skrev Yedidyah Bar David :On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Sam McLeod  wrote:Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi,To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 as you've mentioned with the brief of our conversation here.By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network or native VLAN.It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is named after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might have a bond called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network might have a bond named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might have several vlans off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc... depending on how and where you chop your network up.When I was a sysadmin I used to call my bonds bondFUNCTION.This way I both had a prefix 'bond' that readily showed it'sa bond, and a suffix showing its function.IMO oVirt should allow any bond names. If we do decide to limitthem at all, I'd limit only in a negative way - what's notallowed. E.g. it makes sense to me if we reject prefixes thatare common for non-bonds (eth, en, wl, br etc), but even thatI am not sure is so important.I agree, while at the same time, I don't understand why you would want to "label" a bond. Even if it's untagged, since you can label the bridge that's ontop of it? So even if the bond is called "bond0", the bridge can be called "data", or whatever, to ease diagnozing etc.What if it's tagged? Would you want to label both bond, vlan and bridge? Like "foobond", "barvlan" and "bazbridge"?/K 
--Sam McLeodhttps://smcleod.nethttps://twitter.com/s_mcleod

On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David  wrote:On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg  wrote:On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod  wrote:
> I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails
> stating that the selected bond name is bad.
>
> "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
>
> - Is there a problem similar to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree ofrelated bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to followDan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhapseven better - open a new one, and eventually one or more willbe closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly,not all of them link properly to each other, and at least onewhich was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted.See also e.g. all of the discussion in:https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 
> - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
>
> --
> Sam McLeod
> https://smcleod.net
> https://twitter.com/s_mcleod

I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".

I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
why using different names is useful.

You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.

Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Didi

-- Didi

___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Yedidyah Bar David]

On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Sam McLeod  wrote:

> Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi,
>
> To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 as you've mentioned
> with the brief of our conversation here.
>
> By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than
> bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network
> or native VLAN.
> It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is
> named after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might
> have a bond called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network
> might have a bond named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might
> have several vlans off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc...
> depending on how and where you chop your network up.
>

When I was a sysadmin I used to call my bonds bondFUNCTION.

This way I both had a prefix 'bond' that readily showed it's
a bond, and a suffix showing its function.

IMO oVirt should allow any bond names. If we do decide to limit
them at all, I'd limit only in a negative way - what's not
allowed. E.g. it makes sense to me if we reject prefixes that
are common for non-bonds (eth, en, wl, br etc), but even that
I am not sure is so important.


>
> --
> Sam McLeod
> https://smcleod.net
> https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
>
> On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David  wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg  wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod 
>> wrote:
>> > I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it
>> fails
>> > stating that the selected bond name is bad.
>> >
>> > "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
>> >
>> > - Is there a problem similar to
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?
>>
>
> Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of
> related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow
> Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps
> even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will
> be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly,
> not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one
> which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted.
> See also e.g. all of the discussion in:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229
>
>
>
>> > - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
>> > existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
>> >
>> > --
>> > Sam McLeod
>> > https://smcleod.net
>> > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
>>
>> I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
>> To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
>> only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
>> digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".
>>
>> I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
>> why using different names is useful.
>>
>> You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
>> should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
>> any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.
>>
>> Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
>> ___
>> Users mailing list
>> Users@ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Didi
>
>
>


-- 
Didi
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Sam McLeod]

Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi,

To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 
 as you've mentioned with 
the brief of our conversation here.

By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than 
bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network or 
native VLAN.
It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is named 
after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might have a bond 
called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network might have a bond 
named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might have several vlans 
off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc... depending on how and 
where you chop your network up.

--
Sam McLeod
https://smcleod.net
https://twitter.com/s_mcleod

> On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg  > wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod  > wrote:
> > I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails
> > stating that the selected bond name is bad.
> >
> > "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
> >
> > - Is there a problem similar to
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 
> >  that's known?
> 
> Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of
> related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow
> Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps
> even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will
> be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly,
> not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one
> which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted.
> See also e.g. all of the discussion in:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 
> 
> 
>  
> > - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> > existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
> >
> > --
> > Sam McLeod
> > https://smcleod.net 
> > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod 
> 
> I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
> To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
> only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
> digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".
> 
> I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
> why using different names is useful.
> 
> You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
> should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
> any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.
> 
> Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org 
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Didi

___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Yedidyah Bar David]

On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg  wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod 
> wrote:
> > I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it
> fails
> > stating that the selected bond name is bad.
> >
> > "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
> >
> > - Is there a problem similar to
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?
>

Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of
related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow
Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps
even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will
be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly,
not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one
which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted.
See also e.g. all of the discussion in:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229



> > - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> > existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
> >
> > --
> > Sam McLeod
> > https://smcleod.net
> > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
>
> I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
> To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
> only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
> digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".
>
> I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
> why using different names is useful.
>
> You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
> should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
> any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.
>
> Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>



-- 
Didi
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Sam McLeod]

(Provided logs off-list)

--
Sam McLeod
https://smcleod.net
https://twitter.com/s_mcleod

> On 5 Jan 2018, at 1:20 am, Doron Fediuck  wrote:
> 
> Can you please provide the installation logs?
> 
> On 4 January 2018 at 05:50, Sam McLeod  > wrote:
> I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails 
> stating that the selected bond name is bad.
> 
> "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
> 
> - Is there a problem similar to 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 
>  that's known?
> - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the 
> existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
> 
> --
> Sam McLeod
> https://smcleod.net 
> https://twitter.com/s_mcleod 
> 
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org 
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
> 
> 
> 

___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod  wrote:
> I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails
> stating that the selected bond name is bad.
>
> "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
>
> - Is there a problem similar to
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?
> - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
>
> --
> Sam McLeod
> https://smcleod.net
> https://twitter.com/s_mcleod

I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt".
To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow
only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal
digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".

I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear
why using different names is useful.

You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it
should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow
any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.

Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names?
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] bad bond name when setting up hosted engine

[Doron Fediuck]

Can you please provide the installation logs?

On 4 January 2018 at 05:50, Sam McLeod  wrote:

> I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it
> fails stating that the selected bond name is bad.
>
> "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
>
> - Is there a problem similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
> show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?
> - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the
> existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
>
> --
> Sam McLeod
> https://smcleod.net
> https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users