Sounds like a good basic config.
I am behind a firewall so I need a little corner of modernity that does
not require changes to and does not touche the public IP and does not
affect existing production web applications running on existing hardware.
Once this works, I should be able to add more hardware and move
production applications into the private cloud and hook them up to the
greater universe.
My boxes have a single NIC but I could spring for another one if that
turned out to be the best configuration to get up and running in an hour.
Ron
On 31/07/2013 4:22 PM, Nordgren, Bryce L -FS wrote:
+1
Working 1/2 time for about two weeks now, trying to install on a two-box test
environment. Let me test something that works! I vote for describing a super
simple test case:
+ two boxes
+ two networks
+ minimize impact on public network (no VLAN requirements; no private IPs on
public network hardware, etc.)
I'm using the StackIQ Rocks+Cloud distribution. (RHEL/CentOS 6.4; Cloudstack
4.0.2)
Bryce
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Andrews [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:14 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Re: FW: CS 4.1.0 - this will help a number of people who struggle with
Advanced Networking
Here too, we've been working through a cloudstack install on a 3 box test
environment for almost a week with 95% of the issues being networking due to
poor documentation. I'd be happy to follow some new procedures and provide
feedback.
Also running CentOS 6.4 on all boxes.
-Phil
On 07/31/2013 03:00 PM, Ron Wheeler wrote:
If you need an ignorant person with a lot of CentOS system admin
experience to walk through the procedure with the authors, let me know.
I have a bare CentOS 6.4 ready to be made into something that runs
CloudStack and supports a CentOS VM. If that works, I can rustle up
another piece of hardware with a bare CentOS to add to the confusion.
Ron
On 31/07/2013 2:33 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
Yes, that's correct. I think we need to update the documentation. The
user simply needs to create a bridge where 'public' traffic will
work, and then set that bridge name as the traffic label for public traffic.
Then it will create the vlan device and the bridge necessary for
public based on the physical ethernet device of that bridge.
Note, in this example, it is only looking for cloudVirBr for
compatibility, if there are existing cloudVirBr bridges then the
agent will continue to create cloudVirBr bridges, otherwise, it will
create breth bridges, which allow the same vlan number on different
physical interfaces.
We can easily create some concrete examples for this... such as the
one represented in devcloud-kvm by
tools/devcloud-kvm/devcloud-kvm-advanced.cfg
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Edison Su <[email protected]> wrote:
The KVM installation guide at
http://cloudstack.apache.org/docs/en-US/Apache_CloudStack/4.1.0/html/Installation_Guide/hypervisor-kvm-install-flow.html
, is unnecessary complicated and inaccurate.
For example, we don't need to configure vlan on kvm host by users themselves,
cloudstack-agent will create vlans automatically.
All users need to do is to create bridges(if the default bridge created by
cloudstack-agent is not enough), then add these bridge names from cloudstack
mgt server UI during the zone creation.
Philip Andrews
Senior Linux Engineer
T +1 603-625-2280
F +1 603-641-2280
M
mailto:[email protected]
Thunderhead.com is the trading name of Thunderhead Limited which is registered
in England under No. 4303041 whose registered office is at Catalyst House 720
Centennial Court, Centennial Park, Elstree, Herts. WD6 3SY.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only. It
contains confidential information. Unless you are the named addressee or an
authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else.
If you received it in error please notify us immediately and then destroy it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: Noel Kendall [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2013 9:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: CS 4.1.0 - this will help a number of people who struggle
with Advanced Networking
The documentation for installation in a KVM environment is utterly misleading.
The documentation reads as though one can set up the bridge for the public
network with any name one chooses, the default being cloudbr0.
You cannot use just any old name. That simply will not work.
Let's suppose I have a public network that I isolate on VLAN 5, which is
interfaced on ethernet adapter eth4. I will need to define an adapter eth4.5
with VLAN set to yes.
So far, so good.
Next, for the bridge...
By enabling debugging output in the log, I was able to see that the code looks
for a bridge with the name cloudVirBr5 for my public network.
I had tried several different approaches, none would work if I did not name my
bridge cloudVirBr5, and set my traffic label on the network configurationto the
same.
I have seen numerous posts in the mailing lists, blog entries, you name it,
representing frustrations of throngs of users trying to validate a CS setup.
The documentation is utterly wrong and misleading.
Summary:
does not work:traffic label: cloudbr0 with eth4.5 pointing to cloudbr0 - code
still tries to create a breth4.5 and enlist eth4.5 to it but cannot because it
is already enlisted to cloudbr0.
Good luck everyone with advanced networking with VLAN isolation on CentOS KVM
hosts.
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for
the intended recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the
use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have
received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email
immediately.
--
Ron Wheeler
President
Artifact Software Inc
email: [email protected]
skype: ronaldmwheeler
phone: 866-970-2435, ext 102
