Sorry, the integration test of VPC has been failed for quite some time, I just found this issue after fixing some other issues in the integration test...
--Sheng On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>wrote: > I am happy to redo the work with a different approach, but it did not break > integration last week, did it? So a newer patch needs to be reverted, no? > The problem might be cumulative due to more then one commit, in which case > a role forward might be the quickest way to go. > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > > In fact DnsMasqConfigurator has other issues since it would complete > > override the whole configuration file modified by bash scripts in the VR. > > So Bharat is working on that and should send out patch soon, using bash > > scripts on the dnsmasq.conf instead. Also that's our preferred approach > to > > modify dnsmasq.conf, so I think we can fix the network domain issue after > > Bharat's patch is checked in. I am sure at least you need a parameter to > > indicate VPC router. > > > > For now, I think the first priority is unblock regression test and vpc > > function. > > > > --Sheng > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > >wrote: > > > > > So if I understand your mail correctly, a VpcDnsMasqConfigurator should > > be > > > created to be used in configDnsMasq in VpcVirtualApplienceManagerImpl, > > > instead of the one used now? > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Daan, > > > > > > > > We're talking about vpc router. Your patch affect the guest vm > because > > > > guest VM cannot get ip address from VPC router(DHCP request fail). > > > > > > > > The VPC indeed using a different dnsmasq.conf. See > > > > /etc/vpcdnsmasq.conf(which is a template of VPC used dnsmasq). > > > > > > > > You're using DnsMasqConfigurator, which is only used for normal VR > > before > > > > your patch. It would generated dnsmasq.conf contained: > > > > > > > > <quote> > > > > except-interface=eth1 > > > > except-interface=eth2 > > > > except-interface=lo > > > > </quote> > > > > > > > > However, these lines by no chance can work in a VPC router, which is > > > > introduced by your commit. Because for VPC router, eth2 is the first > > > guest > > > > nic, it cannot be excepted from listening ports, otherwise any guest > > vm's > > > > dhcp request in the first subnet would fail to get IP address through > > > DHCP. > > > > > > > > --Sheng > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Daan Hoogland < > > daan.hoogl...@gmail.com > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > H Sheng et al, > > > > > > > > > > I have no overview of what effect my patch has on guest vm's. It is > > > > > supposed to only generate a dnsmasq.conf for vpc-router-vm's. not > > > > > guestnetwork-vm's. I am happy to look at it, but have no overview > of > > > the > > > > > issue yet. Should a sepperate dnsmasq.conf instance be created for > > vpc > > > > > routers to deal with the different nics? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Daan, I've checked the code, the issue is, original code Bharat > > > > > > wrote(generated dnsmasq.conf) cannot deal with VPC. e.g. the VPC > > > router > > > > > > wouldn't listen on eth0 and eth1, but non-vpc router wouldn't > > listen > > > on > > > > > > eth1 and eth2. Also, some detail configurations of VPC are > written > > > into > > > > > > /etc/dnsmasq.d/cloud.conf, rather than dnsmasq.conf, because it > > need > > > to > > > > > > deal with multiple nics with different range. > > > > > > > > > > > > So using non-vpc's configuration just break whole VPC function. > No > > > > chance > > > > > > it can work because eth2(which is internal network interface in > > VPC) > > > is > > > > > > excluded from listening interface. > > > > > > > > > > > > We need to deal with it ASAP because it's blocking the regression > > > test. > > > > > In > > > > > > fact I didn't see much solution for now except reverting it since > > the > > > > > > dnsmasq config command didn't support VPC anyway. > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW, I don't agree that we need dnsmasq configuration file > > generated > > > by > > > > > > cloudstack, since it's possible that the scripts in the VR would > > > modify > > > > > the > > > > > > file as well(e.g. in cloud-early-setup), then the modification > > would > > > be > > > > > > overrided by whole new file generated by management server(which > > > > happened > > > > > > in this case). We have to gather them in one place. I've talked > > with > > > > > Bharat > > > > > > and he would provide a patch soon to revert the > > DnsMasqConfigurator, > > > > and > > > > > > use bash scripts to do the necessary substitute instead. I think > > any > > > > > > potential change to dnsmasq config command need to wait for it. > > > > > > > > > > > > --Sheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Sheng Yang <sh...@yasker.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Daan, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bharat thinks your fix caused a block bug > > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-3589? Could > you > > > > check > > > > > > it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Sheng > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Bharat Kumar < > > > > bharat.ku...@citrix.com > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Dann, > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> The bug fix > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;a=commitdiff;h=b903262df5e2ff5d174859ce28abae75c4689f0cis > > > > > > >> causing an null value in dnsmasq.config file while creating > VPC > > > > > network > > > > > > >> (bug-id Cloudstack-3589 ). > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Can you please take a look at this. > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> Regards, > > > > > > >> Bharat. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
