CS is doing it - SSVM number is 307 and CPVM number is 255.

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Ahmad Emneina <[email protected]> wrote:

> have you tried destroying the ssvm/cpvm? CS should recycle the vm and spawn
> new instances.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Hertanu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > One more thing. If I try now to put the host in Maintenance mode, it
> stays
> > in PrepareforMaintenance. If I cancel the Maintenance mode it becomes
> again
> > Enabled.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Daniel Hertanu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > CS 4.2.0 running on CentOS 6.4 64 bit with one XenServer host. I had to
> > > reboot the host so I put the host in maintenance mode. All VMs were
> > > shutdown, then the host was put in Maintenace, then I rebooted the
> host.
> > > After the reboot both SSVM and CPVM fail to start with something like
> > this:
> > >
> > >            nameLabel: Async.VM.start_on
> > >      nameDescription:
> > >    allowedOperations: []
> > >    currentOperations: {}
> > >              created: Wed Oct 30 17:55:26 GMT 2013
> > >             finished: Wed Oct 30 17:55:35 GMT 2013
> > >               status: failure
> > >           residentOn: com.xensource.xenapi.Host@59ca3c2e
> > >             progress: 1.0
> > >                 type: <none/>
> > >               result:
> > >            errorInfo: [CANNOT_PLUG_VIF,
> > > OpaqueRef:ce19a694-e572-7620-b1bd-c5a5133f6861]
> > >          otherConfig: {}
> > >            subtaskOf: com.xensource.xenapi.Task@aaf13f6f
> > >             subtasks: []
> > >
> > >
> > > Peeking with XenCenter on the host events log I can see this: "This VM
> > > cannot be started, as its network interfaces could not be connected.
> One
> > of
> > > the NICs is in use elsewhere."
> > >
> > > In the networking tab the host shows a NIC0 labeled management, a bond
> > > between NIC1 and NIC2 labeled guest, NIC3 labeled storage and a
> > > cloud_link_local_network.
> > >
> > >
> > > Any idea on what's going on?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to