On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 6:26 PM Michael Jones <mj(a)mikejonesey.co.uk> wrote:
On 20/08/2020 20:55, Michael Jones wrote:
On 19/08/2020 14:48, Michael Jones wrote:
On 19/08/2020 12:12, Michael Jones wrote:
On 19/08/2020 10:41, Nir Soffer wrote:
There is no warning the method was deprecated and will be missing functionality.
The steps detailed on the alt install page are for the all-in-one running engine-setup.
It's also worth noting this works fine in;
Version 4.3.1.1-1.el7
but not in;
Version 4.4.1.10-1.el8
(el8 has the change in imageio daemons)
The alternate install method is still useful to have, but i think a red warning about
all-in-one on el8 on that page would be good.
Kind Regards,
Michael Jones
Micheal, can you file a bug for this?
If you have a good use case for all-in-one deployment (not using
hosted engine), please explain
it in the bug.
Personally I think simple all-in-one deployment without the complexity
of hosted engine is better,
and we should keep it, but for this we need to teach engine to handle
the case when the proxy
and the daemon are the same server.
In this case engine will not try to setup a proxy ticket, and image
transfer would work directly
with the host daemon.
I'm not very optimistic that we will support this again, since this
feature is not needed for RHV
customers, but for oVirt this makes sense.
Nir
Yes, I can file a bug,
The main usage / setup's I have are;
on-prem installs:
- hosted engine
- gluster
- high availiblity
- internal ip address
- easy great...
dedicated host provider for example OVH single machine:
- alternate install
- all-in-one
The main reason for the separation is that using the cockpit install / hosted engine
install causes problems with ip allocations;
cockpit method requires 1x ip for host, and 1x ip for engine vm, and both ip must be in
the same subnet...
applying internal ip would cut off access, and to make it even harder, getting public ip
blocks didn't work as the box main ip wouldn't be in the same subnet, adding nic
alias ip doesn't work either (fail on install due to failing to setup ovirtmgmt
network).
atm, i'll struggle with changing the machine's main ip to be one of the same
subnet with the engine one... (currently causes host to be taken offline due to hosting
provider, health checks)
provided i can change the host primary ip to be one of the OVH failover ip allocated in a
block... i will be able to install using the cockpit.
and after the install i can setup internal ip with the network tag.
Kind Regards,
Mike
despite managing to get OVH to disable monitoring (ping to the main ip, and rebooting
host) and getting the host in the same ip range as the engine vm...
ie:
host ip: 158.x.x.13/32 = not used anymore
new subnet: 54.x.x.x/28
and reserving;
host = 54.x.x.16
engine = 54.x.x.17
[ ERROR ] The Engine VM (54.x.x.17/28) and the default gateway (158.x.x.254) will not be
in the same IP subnet.
the hosted engine installer crashes due to the gw being in a different subnet, so all
three;
- host
- engine
- gateway
must be in the same subnet...
this rules out an install on ovh dedicated server.
unless... I can install the all-in-one again (this bit works), and then install the
engine vm in an existing all-in-one setup...
essentially the cockpit installation is not compatible with this infra setup.
After going through the documentation again, I understand the best way to approach this
would be to have a remote manager, ie;
self hosted engine (on-prem) > host/2nd DC/Cluster (remote/ovh)
standalone manager (on-prem) > host/2nd DC/Cluster (remote/ovh)
That way resolves the ip issues (only need host ip, just don't install the manager on
the remote server)
outstanding... i need to workout the security implications of this.
shame all-in-one is gone, but the above does work, and even means the remote host can
again use local storage.
I'll raise the bug report now i've finished testing, as I think stand alone,
all-in-one, dedicated hosts are affordable and open ovirt to a wider user base (keeping
hardware requirements minimal).
Thanks again,
Mike
Bug raised:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1871348
Thanks, but we need more info why you cannot use the recommended deployment.
See my questions in the bug.