Just some final feedback on the setup I had.
I have an installation up and running since about a week ago. A number of
remarks I got from Sebastien allowed me to put things in perspective
(especially when trying to get the network configured). All in all, a
pretty standard configuration seems to b
> I cleared the database and re-did the installation and all seems to be
> > working now.
> >
> > Thanks for the help.
> >
> > It seems that something must have been off during the initial install.
>
> Hi Marc, I was at the guy at the booth :)
>
Yeah, thank you; you were very patient. Thank you
On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:01 AM, Marc Leeman wrote:
> I cleared the database and re-did the installation and all seems to be
> working now.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> It seems that something must have been off during the initial install.
Hi Marc, I was at the guy at the booth :)
In my angst
I cleared the database and re-did the installation and all seems to be
working now.
Thanks for the help.
It seems that something must have been off during the initial install.
ok, then I'd re-init the db and try again, Keeping Pauls remark in mind. I
usually mess up my ip space and find myself stuck in a mess. Paul didn't
you post a sample layout somewhere?
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Marc Leeman wrote:
> On 16 October 2014 17:53, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
> > On
On 16 October 2014 17:53, Daan Hoogland wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Marc Leeman
> wrote:
>
> > Is there some inconsistency in the database?
> >
> This might well be. To check this look at mshost and mshost_peer.
>
> Are you upgrading? Is this a test setup?
>
>
>
It is my first setu
arc Leeman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 16 October 2014 08:25
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: firewall problems and proxy problems
I think my mail did not get through, I can't find it in the archives; I've
probably sent it too fast after subscribing
I've star
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Marc Leeman wrote:
> Is there some inconsistency in the database?
>
This might well be. To check this look at mshost and mshost_peer.
Are you upgrading? Is this a test setup?
Daan
btw
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Daan Hoogland
wrote:
> no, this is restoring an instance AFAICT
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Marc Leeman
> wrote:
>
>> > Try to restore your system:
>
> this was part of the log!
Not an advice
--
Daan
no, this is restoring an instance AFAICT
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 5:43 PM, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > Try to restore your system:
> >
>
>
>
> You are talking about this procedure right?
>
>
> https://support.getcloudservices.com/entries/21982811-CloudStack-Restore-Cloud-Server
>
--
Daan
> Try to restore your system:
>
You are talking about this procedure right?
https://support.getcloudservices.com/entries/21982811-CloudStack-Restore-Cloud-Server
Is there some inconsistency in the database?
At the end of the stack dump:
2014-10-16 17:27:36,912 INFO [c.c.c.ClusterManagerImpl] (main:null)
Detected that another management node with the same IP 172.16.8.7 is
considered as running in DB, however it is not pingable, we will continue
cluster in
> configure your system:
> Checking KVM...[Failed]
> Please enable KVM on this machine
I opened a bug on this one: there is a packaging problem: a dependency is
missing on cpu_utils. We got that one figured out too :-) The script is
using kvm-ok at some point.
I don't see a mention of cloud0 in the log. It might come from within the
agent itself trying to restore some defaults after a reset or delete.
I do note some other perculiar thing:
Around the following log fragment a lot of nulls are in the file. Also the
meassage is not filling one with hope: n
The port is being started by the manager. The error is happening during the
restart of the management server
2014-10-16 17:27:36,909 ERROR [c.c.c.ClusterManagerImpl] (main:null) Unable
to ping management server at 172.16.8.7:9090 due to ConnectException
java.net.ConnectException: Connection refuse
No:
I killed the process at the boot the day before yesterday (thanks to the
cloudstack guys that I made to miss the boot crawl): there was indeed a
problem with that; NO vsm were starting.
After killing the old stuck programs; we got further and after downloading
the svm images manually with the
Ok, let us know if this solves your issue.
Op 16 okt. 2014 17:07 schreef "Marc Leeman" :
> $ sudo netstat -tulpn |grep 9090
> tcp6 0 0 :::9090 :::*
> LISTEN 32427/jsvc.exec
>
> That is cloudstack.
>
> But then I thought of it; I asked someone on the cloudstack stand
$ sudo netstat -tulpn |grep 9090
tcp6 0 0 :::9090 :::*
LISTEN 32427/jsvc.exec
That is cloudstack.
But then I thought of it; I asked someone on the cloudstack stand at
Dusseldorf; and the 4.0 was upgraded to 4.3. It seems that there was
something wrong with the pack
Marc from your logs it seems like there is a port conflict on your host.
Can you check on that? port 9090
first I see
2014-10-14 17:25:54,181 INFO [c.c.c.ClusterManagerImpl] (main:null)
Management server (host id : 1) is being started at 172.16.8.7:9090
2014-10-14 17:25:54,186 INFO [c.c.c.Clust
On 16 October 2014 16:10, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
>> My eye is not much more trained at this table but I'll have a peek in the
>> code. It seems to e that cloudstack should be configuring the bridge
>> instead of the cloud0 device. I have no idea if this is a config err of
>> yours or a bug.
>>
>>
My eye is not much more trained at this table but I'll have a peek in the
code. It seems to e that cloudstack should be configuring the bridge
instead of the cloud0 device. I have no idea if this is a config err of
yours or a bug.
My assuptions:
you are using kvm as hypervisor
you are running vers
yes.
But there must be something in the configuration that causes problems. I
haven't played around too much with bridging.
If I delete the route to cloud0 and replace it to the cloudbr0, I can
access the LL devices on the network; after resetting the cloudstack
manager; I cannot. It seems to my
Marc,
The only difference I see is de vice cloudbr0 becoming cloud0, in the third
line. Am I correct?
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Marc Leeman wrote:
>
> OK, there is something off here:
>
> This is my routing table where I can ping another physical host with an
> link-local address
>
> r
OK, there is something off here:
This is my routing table where I can ping another physical host with an
link-local address
route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Iface
0.0.0.0 10.158.231.1 0.0.0.0 UG0
I think my mail did not get through, I can't find it in the archives; I've
probably sent it too fast after subscribing
I've started out with cloudstack a couple days ago and I've hit a bit of a
brick wall.
The installation is running on a system that has two network interfaces, a
public one and p
I've managed to get link local working my modifying the routing (disable
the fw atm too).
/sbin/route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse
Iface
0.0.0.0 10.158.231.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth1
150.158.231.0
I've started out with cloudstack a couple days ago and I've hit a bit of a
brick wall.
The installation is running on a system that has two network interfaces, a
public one and private one (connecting to a local network).
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet manual
auto eth1
iface eth1 inet static
27 matches
Mail list logo
