Dear Tim, Remi Thank you for your advices!! I will try XenServer in KVM(or ESXi).
Regards >-----Original Message----- >From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:[email protected]] >Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 1:50 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: [!]Re: XenServer nested on XenServer > >Hi Tim, > >Virtualising XenServer in KVM (and ESXi) works fine. We use it a lot for >testing and it even performs OK (KVM on KVM is >a faster, but it’s usable). To make things easy, just run everything in one >KVM VM (or connect two openvswitches together >with virtual patch coards). The bridges will make sure all vlans are >available. It’s fully transparent, no need for complex >configurations. > >Regards, Remi > >On 16/06/16 15:38, "Tim Mackey" <[email protected]> wrote: > >>Maruko-san, >> >>My expectation is even with KVM you'd experience similar problems. Assuming >>KVM will virtualize XenServer (not something I'm aware of it being a >>working configuration), you'd still have the networking problems to >>address. Paul can confirm, but to the best of my knowledge, the only >>hypervisor with a virtual switch which properly supports trunking is >>vSphere Enterprise Plus (and may require Cisco Nexus 1000v). I am aware of >>people nesting XenServer in vSphere for training purposes, but the >>performance is low (iirc nested vSphere emulates some of the hypervisor >>calls rather than using pure hardware). >> >>-tim >> >>On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:37 PM, 丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOTA < >>[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Paul, Tim >>> >>> Thank you for your answer. >>> >>> It can run on the "NO" nested XenServer with some physical server and >>> physical switch. >>> My goal was to build an easy test environment, >>> And to be prepared in fewer resources >>> (1 phisical Management Server and some hypervisor on 1 phisical >>> hypervisor). >>> >>> So take the time I think I will give up.... >>> Last question!! >>> Will I be able to construct "XenServer nested on KVM"??? >>> >>> Regards >>> >>> >>> >-----Original Message----- >>> >From: Tim Mackey [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 10:39 PM >>> >To: [email protected] >>> >Subject: [!]Re: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> > >>> >Maruko-san, >>> > >>> >The problem is that you're using advanced networking. Advanced networking >>> >requires the physical switch to have its switch ports trunked. When you >>> run >>> >a nested XenServer, that physical switch becomes the *virtual* switch of >>> >the XenServer. While I believe it is possible to configure the virtual >>> >switch to allow a given virtual switch port to run in a trunked mode, the >>> >XenServer api isn't coded to allow for this. >>> > >>> >What this means is that in order to make your configuration function, >>> >you're going to need to determine a number of things (XenServer vif and >>> pif >>> >ports), and then directly configure the ovs (open virtual switch) to allow >>> >trunked operations for your VLANs. Complicating matters is that you'll >>> need >>> >to do this both on every host in the pool, but also at each server >>> restart. >>> >The latter is due to the vif port on the ovs being different as each VM >>> >boots, and a reboot will change that port (even though the vif remains the >>> >same). >>> > >>> >I *think* MAC forwarding will work properly, so I'd suggest trying to use >>> >basic networking. >>> > >>> >btw, what I outlined for the advanced networking is very much "unsupported >>> >by Citrix" at this time >>> > >>> >-tim >>> > >>> >On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Paul Angus <[email protected]> >>> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hi Ryota, >>> >> >>> >> A lot here depends on the 'outside' XenServer's openvswiches ability to >>> >> pass traffic to a MAC that it can't see. And with the trunking of VLANs >>> >> The first test I would do is migrate the UserVM to XenServer01-002. If >>> >> they can communicate then your issue is with the outer networking. >>> >> >>> >> Tim and Remi may know more about bending XenServer networking to your >>> >> will, but from my general experience: >>> >> >>> >> You many well need to configure your outer XenServer (XenServer01) to >>> use >>> >> promiscuous mode on any interfaces which the nested XenServers use. >>> >> http://support.citrix.com/article/CTX121729 >>> >> and >>> >> you'll need to ensure that tagged VLANs are passed through the guest >>> >> interfaces on the parent XenServer (XenServer01) as XenServer01-002 will >>> >> tag traffic with VLAN x,y,z (guest VLAN) which needs to be retained and >>> >> passed to XenServer01-003 - I don't know how to do that for a >>> XenServer...:( >>> >> >>> >> there is also an experimental setting for nested XenServers: >>> >> >>> >> >>> https://justus.berlin/2015/07/nested-virtualization-in-citrix-xenserver-6-5-sp1/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Kind regards, >>> >> >>> >> Paul Angus >>> >> >>> >> [email protected] >>> >> www.shapeblue.com >>> >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK >>> >> @shapeblue >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: 丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOTA [mailto:[email protected] >>> ] >>> >> Sent: 15 June 2016 09:57 >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Subject: RE: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> >> >>> >> Dear Paul&Remi&Tim >>> >> >>> >> My networking is as follows. >>> >> >>> >> The zone is Advanced mode. >>> >> I made 3 XenServers as XenServer01-001/002/003 on XenServer01. >>> >> And I could add the 3 hosts to CloudStack. >>> >> SSVM and CPVM started in XenServer01-001. >>> >> So, I could deploy UserVM in XenServer01-002 and VR(DHCP) in >>> >> XenServer01-003. >>> >> >>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> ManagementServer(172.168.100.110) >>> >> | >>> >> | >>> >> (PhysicalNetwork) >>> >> | >>> >> | >>> >> XenServer01(172.168.100.100) >>> >> ------------------------------------ >>> >> XenServer01-001(172.168.100.101) <--SSVM/CPVM >>> >> XenServer01-002(172.168.100.102) <--VR(DHCP) >>> >> XenServer01-003(172.168.100.103) <--UserVM >>> >> ------------------------------------ >>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> But, it could not access between the UserVM and the VR. >>> >> I wander if VLAN is not granted because of the nested XenServer. >>> >> >>> >> ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> VR -OK-> XenServer01-002 -OK-> XenServer01 -NG??-> XenServer01-003 --> >>> >> UserVM ~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >> >>> >> Regards >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >-----Original Message----- >>> >> >From: 丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOTA >>> >> >[mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> >Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 5:42 PM >>> >> >To: [email protected] >>> >> >Subject: RE: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> >> > >>> >> >Hi, Paul&Remi&Tim >>> >> > >>> >> >Thank you for your e-mail. >>> >> >And I will write the details of my networking. >>> >> > >>> >> >Please wait for my e-mail. >>> >> >(English is too difficult for me(^^)) >>> >> > >>> >> >Regards >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>> >> >>From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> >>Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:27 PM >>> >> >>To: [email protected] >>> >> >>Subject: Re: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> >> >> >>> >> >>Hi Paul, >>> >> >> >>> >> >>I don’t get it but that’s probably me :-) Never mind. >>> >> >> >>> >> >>Regards, >>> >> >>Remi >>> >> >> >>> >> >>On 13/06/16 16:00, "Paul Angus" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >>>Remi, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>I think asking for the details for Maruko San's networking in order >>> >> >>>to give him (hopefully) useful specific help covered >>> >> >>that part. >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>Haters gonna hate. >>> >> >>>Paul Angus >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>[email protected] >>> >> >>>www.shapeblue.com >>> >> >>>53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>> >> >>>From: Remi Bergsma [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> >>>Sent: 13 June 2016 14:26 >>> >> >>>To: [email protected] >>> >> >>>Subject: Re: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>I kinda like shameless self-plugs although I fail to see how this one >>> >> answers the question asked? >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>On 13/06/16 14:09, "Paul Angus" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>>>Hi Maruko San >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>We'd need to see the details of your networking. >>> >> >>>>We've created Trillian github.com/shapeblue/Trillian - it's based >>> >> on ESXi and uses CloudStack to orchestrate >>> >> >everything. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>Kind regards, >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>Paul Angus >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>[email protected] >>> >> >>>>www.shapeblue.com >>> >> >>>>53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>> >> >>>>From: 丸子良太 / MARUKO，RYOTA >>> >> >>>>[mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> >>>>Sent: 13 June 2016 07:53 >>> >> >>>>To: [email protected] >>> >> >>>>Subject: XenServer nested on XenServer >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>Hi >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>I tried to create XenServer nested on XenServer for CloudStack. >>> >> >>>>It is success to create XenServer nested on XenServer, And >>> CloudStack >>> >> Manager create the system VMs. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>But VR could not access the user VMs. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>Please tell me about the problem. >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>>Regards >>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> >> >>>
