This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS"; protected-headers="v1" From: ~Stack~ <i.am.stack@gmail.com> To: users <users@ovirt.org> Message-ID: <a03943a4-0db1-9e5f-50fc-0736606eea20@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Unable to add host to cluster after network References: <1d9816aa-6d14-d62b-279b-95c13adec21d@gmail.com> <CAFS8XSUKAmyXZ6wKW1O7un74pHp9V0rTfu6TfiZRcZRO8FO+yA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAFS8XSUKAmyXZ6wKW1O7un74pHp9V0rTfu6TfiZRcZRO8FO+yA@mail.gmail.com> --Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 04/18/2018 08:41 AM, Eitan Raviv wrote:
Hi Stack, =20 I read through your ordeal and I would like to post a few comments:
Thanks I appreciate it!
* When I try to reproduce your scenario with the second network set t= o 'not required' before on-boarding the second host, it=C2=A0 is proc= essed and set to 'up' by the engine without any hiccups or any errors in the log.
Hrm. Yeah, I think I can reproduce the failure. I've only done it once, but I have the chance to test so just to make sue I've got the right information I'm going to run a another test specifically for it.
* On the other hand, if the network is 'required' the scenario reproduces,
Whoo! I'm not completely crazy! I'm just lucky to discover a new bug I suppose. :-)
but on my setup it can be resolved: initially the second network is proclaimed missing and the host becomes non-operational,=
with its interfaces disappearing from the engine as you reported. But if the second network is rendered 'not-required' or even delete=
d
for that matter from the engine, engine succeeds in reconnecting to=
the second host within a couple of minutes, and the host gains 'up'=
status.
Setting the second network to 'not-required' does not seem to break my hosts out of their infinite loop. I haven't tried deleting the second network yet. Let me try that before I rebuild to test the first point. Thank you for your feedback. It is much appreciated. ~Stack~ --Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS-- --GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJa11x/AAoJELkej+ysXJPmuFEQAIsZw+TCjvQbmg8zwaGgeUR4 Ge033BttEqz0jwaNFoVLBnsyzjJ1xY+TILNXOxiMiXMguKdRnEVNRy16DBv0060x HFBTtlk1ZDLmbWLXox7sfWcXq2ec/OJJL2VKqhKqkXVYhq1GQjLZvETHz5Op+EUv DPAWDXvckWvRoWHgaZ4y1TnYvPvPNAHrULjY2rZ6fymTCHfK4cZT9oxCBcIg+87k noSB+qjlmJxAafKnMP4Tl55tY8rB8Mj49qK7pI2D95Lxu8aQCbTrwThWWzj0RDe4 q9lZMqYnvki87bjblQn1VCPX8s0jfoq83+s9XpnGaor6TVIh5PSlHgbBT+l+CatQ /numEuPwE5B11Gg+1rm93JZNv/JQ9QFVxlm5nk452uf+Gs16c3UnKhbFIlQnFE7P FTNYuNJDwI4WKw7tk7Z+i8ROkcZQT7x/0E0TP+VXZvxfdF6V8+WsVjn8uSMV7aPt 1ZzDOT2rUsqcaX6Upfa9XqD/q3gZBMQbQx3m2K4PCcAZU61WArHqFySMQ9izoY87 E+q1Jp/J2/NoQHF0gxTtl7xOlHayECnHnbruXYrPOI7td5LhmWwqBemD8b447w9f R1M899dp0FBGEmtNmYqOtID0Lasch+D+9GXkt4QnqKBdp24cSUjY6QQZUNMtdJ5Y Wnv6vBYwSS5EotR1agWf =9Nj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M--